The Duality Phenomenon (and the Tale of the purloined Tea-Buds)
Why must we spend much of our valuable, and perhaps private, time engaging in pursuit of a victory against the chaser so enveloped in the taste induced by solace during a life of loss? - this was merely part of the question that baffled and boggled myself, but not the friend in company, at who’s apartment we spend most of our daylights. At around half past four, he carefully poured, in two of his ceramics, the concoction synthesized from the rose buds he carefully purloined from the grandest of maisons in his hometown, Paris. The man of my speak is one with idiosyncrasy so intricate - all attempts at comprehension I declare never are fruitful. As for the mimicking of it, “le mime, c’est aussi le cirque.”
The friend in question, F. Adrien Couture, who operates by the name ‘Flynt’, has a ratiocination which I have never previously encountered or encountered again. Much of his days are spent in lamentations and thought, of which I witness a fraction. As he embraced the affection he felt while preparing tea, I proceeded to read the many headlines of the broadsheets I procured. We adjourned into our everyday evening ritual of heated inquiry, prefacing the comprehension thus discovered with clear common understanding - so long as we did it for the sake of education. Flynt walked over to his archives, from which he picked a paper and scanned within one moment, before returning it to the precise position from whence it was drawn. I started to read, aloud, the words on the front page, but my speech was arrested before birth, as Flynt spoke.
“It appears to have taken quite a while for the manipulation and contortion of the thought, hence paving way for the augmentation of a duality, that only seemingly-rightly offers la victoire,” said Flynt. Astonished, I asked, “how you knew, I wonder, with great precision, what the matter of today’s news is, and how, with greater precision, knew what the inference thus must be.”
“I merely caught eye of the photograph on the paper on my way back from the tobacconist before noon, hence I’ve had enough time to validate whether the matter of today fits in with the most recent of our hypotheses - the one of duality.”
“Duality?” I asked. A refreshment of memory was needed, along with rejuvenation. We continued to drink, and I asked, “when exactly had we conjured?”
“Bon ami, it was on the walk home from court. We had sat in to watch the versus of le directeur and la employée - the lawyer who’s ‘almost Hamlet-inspired dramatics’ made us jointly declare him l’idiot. We had good dinner after, at the Greek restaurant you suggested, before we bid our bye’s.”
Only then to some clarity had I come. If not so photographic, his memory, I perhaps, ironically, would have engaged in a duality myself at the present, as I recall and document this day. We continued sipping the most delicious rose tea I had ever had, courtesy of Flynt and his success in purloining, who then lied in wait, almost as if in the wings, for me to read the news at hand.
“It appears as though the controversial news anchor, of the morning show we watch, might soon be sacked from his job,” I narrated. “The party with whom he argued claims to be the general victim of hate crime towards men of his sexuality. The homosexual, also guest of the show, was brought on under impression of inquiry.”
“Precisely, duality. If I remember the details correctly, about the argument four days prior, it was that the anchor only inquired the homosexual, because the homosexual voluntarily agreed to represent the small number of members of the LGBTQ community?” Flynt asked.
“Indeed. The anchor was skeptical of a recent document that floated into view of the public eye.”
“Which document was this again? The one that spoke of the existence of one hundred possible genders?”
“That is the one of controversy. The homosexual man argued that there is a possibility of there existing, at the very least, one person that identifies with each of the different genders. Hence, there are, at the very least, one hundred genders that humanity knows of.”
“And why had the anchor disputed this theory?”
“The anchor says that there must only be three - the two traditional, and the third that encompasses what does not fit into the former two. This he says in regards to gender and identity, not in regards to sexuality.”
“This was the argument four days ago. Threat to the anchor’s job is the news of today?”
“T’is. Many of the aforementioned community have taken the homosexual’s side, as you must’ve presumed. The ease of access to free speech in today’s world has allowed the many to directly convey their opinions to the company the anchor works for. Hence, the homosexual’s hypothesis was proved.”
“I must ask, bon ami, why had you felt compelled to mention that the homosexual ‘claims to be the general victim of hate crime’ and that this mention was a necessary context of the man introduced?”
“Flynt, this was one of our own hypotheses, one which agreeance came upon only after much ado, simply because of the difficulty of the circumstances of every possibility. T’was when I had asked you about the reliance of testimonies. The victim holds an extra card over everyone that is not the, if not one of the, victim themselves. And how influential this extra card can be in matter of argument. This was the topic of our talk, where we considered the possibilities, however many of them there were, with respect to the intensity of the context. We spoke of victims of all natures of indecent and unspeakable crimes, and how our duty lies in affording the benefit of doubt, regardless of whether a malevolent lie hides behind the mask.”
“Our agreeance had cometh when nobility was prioritized,” continued Flynt. “This was a very rightful judgment by you, perhaps more than most of the judges and constables that meander today - as we had cynically and humorously labeled them as ‘les fautes de justice.’ The validation of the victim hypothesis was precisely after we had walked home from court that day. We closed the lid on that hypothesis and hence lay the bricks for the next conjuring of ours - the duality. Today’s paper has given us validation of the duality hypothesis.”
Nothing had I previously heard of the new conjuring of ours, which was not uncommon. Often we develop, alone, our hypotheses and confide with the other. I am still in wonder of why he chooses to call his hypotheses as ‘ours’, when he typically alone devises genius, while the ones I devise often require a rigorous changing of hands.
“The argument was,” Flynt continued, almost as if on the brink of a revelation. “The argument was! - nothing more is needed to emphasize how important it is for us to understand the exact implications and nature of duality. What other matters in the news, specifically that of arguments, are there, that we have read together, bon ami?
“Past weeks have had matters of ‘feminism’, where feminists argued about the importance of equality over equity, and the counter was the praise and humbling of chivalry. A general debate on whether obesity is an issue or not - whether whatever sizes must all be acceptable. Across the Atlantic, there have been many supporters of gun law, possession and use, which has been argued by anchors here in England. One, quite famous, was that of whether hunters and poachers should be allowed to continue hunting lions - purely to use as trophy of their accomplishments.”
“Yes, I remember these very well,” said Flynt. “Whether one wins or the other wins was the entire premise of each of these arguments that were broadcast live on national television. But of these matters, we must not debate. There are far too many affected by each.”
“Rightly so. And if we are to set a hypothesis for the matter in question for each of these, we will resort to generalization of all people - hence, looking at classes instead of individual morals. And if we are to try and identify the individual morals, the possibility of deceit is introduced. Thus, we cannot debate over the key issues that have arisen, the bulk of their debate, and thus find answer to the endless stream of inquiries.”
“Very clever deductions, mon ami,” said Flynt, before he walked over to the kettle to refill our cups, and returned with servings of pain perdu. “And furthermore, what else are you to deduce from those, in relation to the news of today?”
“I believe that all this debate is intended to show, in dramatic and vulgar fashion, the simplicity of common man, and how we debate and argue endlessly, without getting any viable results that apply to the world. The one extravagance frequently recurring is that all these events are publicized, so that they can forge a sensation. The anchors and defendants are all interested in making a point, more than they are in furthering the cause of truth! Thus, as viewers, a timely reminder is needed - that this is all purely a highly decorated chicanery.”
Flynt forcefully spit the delicious tea he once carefully sipped, and then burst into an uncontrollable laughter! “Mon ami! - that is very true, indeed. But that is not the inference I intended for!” He took a few moments to gather himself and breathe, before he began the soliloquy he seemed determined to enact.
“It is,” Flynt continued, “something very brilliantly useful and helpful, but the circumstances of that very brilliance is such, that most of its possible uses are often done with the intention of personal victory, and not of a communal one. If the homosexual were to win the argument, it proves that he is right, at that moment, and only of those words spoken, in regard to that particular context. And often, such small victories, propelled by euphoria, causes one deduction to also mean another, and a third, and a fourth, and a fifth, and henceforth an endless number of deductions, with a debatable fallacious nature. That personal victory is thus forethought to have induced a communal one. And those that propel this victory belong to that remarkable class of thinkers whose ratiocination stretches only so far, that as long as they can change the circumstances of a situation, just so that it is within the limits of their intellects, thereby a victory is believed by them to be obtainable.”
“Flynt, the speech of yours, I do not know,” I continued, as my joy slowly grew, as I knew I was about to witness his true idiosyncrasy in the flesh. “What, of this phenomenon, do you make?”
“We had previously spoken of the limits of one’s intellect, and thereby established a way to determine their ratiocination - to understand the way in which they think, and hence deduce. And here with today’s news, the hypothesis of duality brings perspective. You know very well the way in which I work. I never try and ask, ‘what has happened?’ but instead I try and ask, ‘what has happened, that has not happened before?’ This mode of operation of mine, gives you an idea of my thinking capability. And for us to make progress on the hypothesis, it is important that we first understand the exact thinking capability of the people in question, and accordingly adjust our methods to match them.
“Regarding whatever may be the limits of one’s intellect, I intend to emphasize the importance. I shall tell you about the most brilliant thinking process I have ever encountered. It is what my personal thinking is inspired by. And the extraordinary detail about this process, is that it is the intellectual abilities of a schoolboy!
“This is the schoolboy, so incredibly genius, that walked away with all the pence and pocket change of all persons that were in the school! He goes about this method with a creative way - by playing a game with everyone he challenges. Both players play to win in this simply devised guessing game, with a monetary incentive to win. I refer to the boy who devised the game as the ‘reasoner’ and the other person playing as the ‘challenger’.
“The challenger is required to hold a number, of his own determination, of one pence coins in his closed fist. The reasoner must guess whether the challenger is holding either an odd number of coins, or an even number. If the reasoner is wrong, he gives one pence to the challenger, but if he is correct, he takes one pence from the challenger. The reasoner plays the game, and loses the first round. But he goes on to win the second, third, fourth, fifth, and however many rounds he wants to play with the challenger, before choosing a different person to play it with.
“His winning principle is simple, for his needs, but it is quite genius when us adults learn from it. He plays the game on one simple premise. He must, either by past knowledge or by observation, determine the level and reach of the challenger’s intellect in regards to the limitations of the game. The first round is irrelevant, because the principle only applies from the second and onward. He thinks to say ‘odd’ in the first round, and loses, for example. But, for the second round, he intends to play with his deduction of the intellectual capabilities of the challenger. There are only two possible outcomes, which are ‘odd’ or ‘even’. The reasoner assigns these two outcomes to the two possible thinking processes of the challenger. If the challenger is just smart enough to feel they will win by using the other option for the second round, then the boy thinks, ‘okay, I’ll guess odd again this time,’ and hence wins the round. Otherwise, if the challenger is cunning enough to use the same option for two rounds in a row, then the boy thinks, ‘I’ll say even this time,’ and hence wins the round.
“Of all the possible intellects, the reasoner transforms the challenger into only two possible options - either he is just smart enough to change his value, or he is cunning enough to stay with the same value. And with this understanding of the challenger’s capabilities, the reasoner goes on to win the second, third, and fourth rounds, against other students, younger and older, teachers, drivers, janitors, and everyone in the school, hence walking home with a pocket full of pennies.
“The ideology the boy uses is that there are many kinds of thinkers, and of all possible backgrounds, but for the purposes of his victory, he can create two classes into which he can categorize every person on the planet, with varying degrees of intellectual capabilities, and hence guarantees himself a victory after adjusting his methods to the class of the other person. He thus, instead of engaging in all possible knowledge canyons, transforms the world into a binary choice - that it is one, if not it is the other - to win.
“A truly remarkable method of seeking victory - what must this have to do with the matter of today’s news, you might wonder. Before I come to that, I wish that you keep in mind the simplicity of binary choices, of things being one, if not the other. It primarily serves to provide an easy and quick victory, and only works for things that are easy and quick. The boy walks away with enough pence for a few more candy bars, but he does not earn enough for a living from this method. Why then, I wonder, did the homosexual and the anchor bother with a chicanery?
“It is quite the common man’s way of arguing - the contortion and manipulation of a large group of possibilities and facts, and thus the turning of it into a binary choice! Whatever circumstances and implications there are are all discarded, and the facts are simplified into a binary question. The answer to this binary question also happens to be the answer to a hundred other such binary questions, and thus the common man wins the argument!
“I hereby predict that the anchor must have said something like, ‘I declare myself a penguin, and that is what my gender is.’ The homosexual then argues that ‘a penguin is not a possible gender.’ The anchor backs his statement by saying, ‘I can be whatever I want, and you cannot tell me otherwise. Is it wrong for you to tell me otherwise?’ thus successfully trapping the homosexual in a binary question with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as the only possible answers. Let’s say he answers ‘yes,’ then the anchor will go on to say that ‘I can thus create any gender from my imagination, and you must respect my rights. And therefore, something as nonsensical as a penguin is allowed to be a classifiable gender. Hence, the report of a hundred genders is nonsensical.’ Now you see how duality works? The anchor takes all possibilities, and simplifies it into a question with only two possible answers. The homosexual must be aware, that by allowing the anchor to pose this question, in that heat of the moment, he had effectively already lost the argument.
“But this, I am disgusted by. It is not the real way of intellectual debate. There is a fallacy here - the turning of the most intricate things into a universally binary question - and so it is only a cowardly way of winning an argument. Unfortunately, most that make the public eye are in that very same remarkable class of thinkers that also know nothing of the fallacious nature of binary questions. Thus, my hypothesis is that humans tend to contort and manipulate all facts and figures, all theories and probabilities, regardless of the gravity and magnitude, and regardless of the context and circumstance, hence forming a binary question, for the hastened pursuit of victory.”
“Flynt,” I interjected. “Why must you make that duality is not a choice of humans, but rather a tendency of humans?”
“Bon ami, your noble judgment! We must afford the benefit of doubt. Kindness is free, and harshness is like an unpaid debt.”
“Honored of your evaluation. I apologize about the arrest, but I must say that this is the most delightful tea I have ever sipped. But please, explain to me the nature of the fallacy.”
“Merci beaucoup! It is the treasure of my theft. But now, onto that same train of thought. The fallacy that lies here, is that this is a very mathematical mode of conduct. Using mathematics in daily life seems like a method of great intellect, but in reality is one of false intellect. The arguer believes that if A means B, then definitely B also means A. This is a narrow philosophy that only applies to figures and numbers, but not to other strands of the whole spectrum of human knowledge. The arguer brings mathematics into everything, and even believes things that are even more fallacious! - such as, that if A means B, and B means C, then A means C for sure! It is surely a language that assists the furthering of knowledge, but only in some places! - and not in all.
“In mathematics, the idea of the converse being true comes about, making people use of this axiom to justify words and statements, and not just facts and figures. It is that the inverse is true, and not the converse, and only in a situation or circumstance that can be quantified and expressed in the language used in mathematics, but this distinction is not made by many. The thought of mathematics being used to validate any statements in poetry as as stupid an argument as there can be! - yet people do it often, to have a quick and easy victory. The arguer believes that a particular knowledge sphere, such as that of psychology, can be recited in terms of a language apart from English, which is believed to be mathematics. If you remember, I had spoken to you of knowledge spheres earlier, and how they define a person’s intellectual capabilities. The idea is such that the sphere of mathematics and the sphere of poetry have no common volume, and that they do not intersect in a geometrical space, but rather, the belief is, that when combined together, they form a bigger sphere with volume greater than their intrinsic volumes added. It is believed that the volume - the full scope and reach - of one knowledge sphere multiplies the volume of the other, and the other also multiplies the volume of the one. But this is certainly not the case! - the truth is that they have common volume between them, akin to how you would view the common area on ‘une diagramme de Venn’. And this volume, where both individual knowledge spheres intersect with each other, is very minute relatively. Often, in situations and experiences where we are to full immerse ourselves in this volume, the bold and brave influence of both is felt, hence we make a conscious acknowledgment of it.
“The idea of using one knowledge sphere as the language of the other is about as viable as making a moral argument on mathematical terms. Some questions of morality are devised purely with mathematics in mind. We have together witnessed many quizzes where our morals were determined based on mathematical grounds. And if such methods of questioning are deemed to be rightful, then problems arise. The mistake of assuming the converse arises again. If a moral question can be answered on mathematical grounds, then surely a mathematical question can be answered on moral grounds! This converse theory is a dismal failure in furthering the cause of truth, in any way whatever. We often see mathematics brought into knowledge spheres where it is often unwanted. Spheres such as language and poetry, history and democracy - all of these are thought to be explainable in mathematical terms, but they are not! Duality is the primary incentive of bringing mathematics into anything and everything.
“Usage of the converse being true is often brought into argument. It is simple in mathematics, and true in that sphere of knowledge - that is A equals B, then B equals A. But often, in arguments, this mathematical idea of the converse being true is brought. Rather, outside of the sphere of mathematics, it is that the inverse is true - that if A means B, then we can only say that B is meant by A. This is more applicable to things outside of the sphere than the converse theory, but it furthers nothing in arguments. It is purely an educational distinction, that is not helpful to many situations. The converse theory, on the other hand, being inapplicable, is proved wrong by the remarkable and cowardly phenomenon of duality, and hence hinders any furthering of truth. Let us recall what Le Gardien said about the feminism incident. The first that comes from memory is an anger-driven woman who complained of being treated as ‘less equal’ than a man. She spoke of how her capabilities are downplayed by the men at her workplace. A duality here also comes to mind. The anchor had to answer the question she had posed, which was, ‘can a woman, without any help or hindrance, push a door open?’ The answer to this question is either affirmative or negative - a duality enforced by the feminist, and a binary choice for the anchor. Regardless of the answer to the question, that I do not wish to even bother with, the phrasing of the question traps the anchor into a checkmate! Of course, the anchor would answer, ‘yes’ to that question, and that question only. But neither one of them realize that the anchor has answered that and that question only! The feminist, I presume, had gone on to say that ‘a man can also push the door open by himself. Hence, women are equal to men. Hence, there is no absolute necessity for a man to push a door open for a woman. Hence, the men that hold doors open for me must think that I need their help to do this action. Hence, they are effectively downplaying my capabilities.’ The same mathematical mode of conduct! - that if A equals B, and if B equals C, then A equals C. And if C equals D, and if D equals E, then A equals E, definitely! And so, that anchor is trapped in his checkmate, and the feminist walks away as the winner of the argument. Else, with this cowardly fashion of argument, the rage of the anchor takes over - resentment over losing - and the tables are turned and the anchor walks away as the winner. The whole event is thus, as you very aptly named, a chicanery.
“This is where the malevolence of duality is understood. A viewer, a listener, a reader, in the dozens, hundreds, and millions, are all engaged in the war that is broadcast. And the myriad of loss of time causes lamentations in the course of life. How can the argument continue through? - when it was only a binary question that brought consensus to the debate! The changes when things are broadened, are exponential, and the theory of possibilities is often mistaken for the theory of probabilities. One man might declare publicly an affection for the lady, the feminist we just spoke of, and hence justify the kind gesture. Another man might shift focus and blame to the chivalry taught to him by his father. The third man, that is married already, has noticed that his wife loves when he does it - hence, he does it for all women, because it is what gentlemen do. The fourth man has seen the first three men do it, and felt that he must do it too. The fifth man is incredibly courteous, and he does it for all people - men and women. I have quickly illustrated to you five different possibilities, and only assure you that there are an exponential number of such. How then, can one binary question, with the exact same phrasing, with no changes or amendments, and with no different answer, be used to overpower every single possibility that has existed or that ever will exist?
“As the schoolboy has illustrated, it is only my belief, that in pursuit of gain, quick and easy, the premise and circumstance of duality are brought into play. For the homosexual that argues in favor of the existence of one hundred different genders, the possibilities of duality arising are many. ‘Can any person tell the other what to be and what not to be?’ ‘Can you tell someone, who is trans-gender, that they are in fact not trans-gender?’ ‘Is it noble of you to ignore my rights?’ All of these questions are possibilities, and are all conceptions under the phenomenon of duality, where the answers are binary.
“It is quite saddening that most in the public resort to the fast and easy way of doing things, but never think of the long term approach. A quick victory will never have long-lasting celebrations and solace. I hereby confess to you that I long to afford the benefit of doubt to every person that uses duality for their argument, and hence I label this as nothing more than ‘the general tendency of human beings to want something cheap and fast.’”
Flynt placed the ceramics back on the kitchen counter, before retreating to his armchair and crossing his legs. He breathed many, and asked, “what bread do you make of it, bon ami?”
“Flynt, I know not where the greed of my inquisition must lie,” I said. “Must there always be a story to share - that is often the common truth of all those that engage in the public eye. Perhaps the duality is already understood by many, in the industry, and perhaps it all truly is a chicanery as there is a story that must be told. This supposition can also be a dire summarization of the answer to your hypothesis - that making a chicanery is indeed nothing more than creating a story to be told, but doing it cheap and fast, because that is what the human tendency is.”
I placed my cup down, and embraced the few moments of taste that lingered on the lips. “Flynt, before we are to begin our search for evidence to support the hypothesis, through the archives of disciplined broadsheets you have so faithfully collected, I must say that this rose-bud tea is the most delicious of all tea’s I have ever drank in my life. I wonder what place it must be, from where you claim to have purloined this tea, and that it was from the richest of maisons in Paris.”
“Mon ami, there is the secondary evidence through which we shall peruse for a while,” Flynt continued. “Before that, I shall elucidate to you the primary evidence I have. Coincidentally, it also tells you about my recent purloining of these exquisite and rare tea-buds I have purloined. Let us preface this with game theory - that we know of the opponent’s moves, and that the opponent has the knowledge of this capability of ours. For this theft, the people I chose to steal from, I knew very well. The reaches of their intellect are only within science and mathematics, but greatly so within those spheres of knowledge. They have earned grand fortunes for themselves, because they are experts in the field in which they operate. I had deduced that because of the extended number of staff hired over the weekend, to cater to the invited guests, there is a higher number of individual knowledge spheres that simultaneously exist within the same limited geographical space, than before. This increases the number of possibilities, surely. The number of probabilities, on the other hand, are indeterminable easily and quickly. My method and means of operation are known by the couple I had stolen from, but the extra card in my hand is that I know of their acknowledgment of my knowledge of them.
“There were a higher number of chauffeurs, chefs, waiters, butlers, cleaners, musicians, and all that require the hosting of a grand party. That party held at their maison, over the past weekend, was when I knew I must make my mark. I made quick notes of the situation at hand, and knew when and how to strike. With a large number of unknown people catering, the obfuscation of the reality is exponential. From my perception of the intellectual reaches of the couple that hosted the party, I knew that they operate in exactly the same way as I have placed in my hypothesis. There have been thefts in the past in that house, and all have been done by the service staff. The circumstances have been replicated, again, and no counter-measures were employed in the hasty planning. I had deduced that if the couple were to find their specially imported and exquisite rose tea-buds missing, they would jump to the conclusion of it being stolen - that it wasn’t just misplaced. So, their next action would be to search for the thief. To go about doing this, they would form a duality for every person that was in the house over the weekend. Either the person was interested in stealing it, else they were not. This eliminates all guests as suspects immediately, as they are all rich and noble - they buy and they do not steal. The service staff is where the blame shall be directed then. More duality arises here, as the couple would start question each of them. ‘Are they loyal, and hence won’t steal, or are they loyal, but still will steal?’ ‘Are they truthful, or are they actors?’ ‘Are we good at being the detective, or are we not?’ They would then go on a campaign to reason and comprehend all questions they have posed for themselves, not acknowledging the mathematical mode of conduct they are employing. Their deductions are all of the mathematical nature - that if A means B, and B means C, so on and so forth - and not applicable to morals and ethics, to thinking styles and characters. And in such deductions, they feel happy, satisfied, and relieved, purely because there are more deductions that were made, akin to the feeling of successfully completing math problems. Thus, with myself completely out of the picture, the circumstances and possibilities are so difficult that it envelops all those who indulge, and the couple, I can say, are fully immersed. Hence, the converse was two birds with one stone for me! - the simplicity of my act, as well the statement made by my act, which is that I have used their own methods of the ‘converse’ against them. And so, I just lifted the rose buds, having possession of all keys in the house, from the cabinet where it was held, and carried them with me on my return cruise here.”
“Flynt, this act of yours - I do not wish to judge the act itself,” I said. “But, I wish to say, that the means are truly brilliant. Whose house was it, may I ask? And how had you access to this property?”
Flynt chuckled, and a slight smirk came upon his visage. He said, “bon ami, la malice commence à sa domicile!”