The (cladistic) idea of a single true tree of life is just a brain ghost

Reality is fundamentally dual wherein every pole relates to another pole, each of which also relates to another pole. This can be illustrated with the illustration below.

The circles represent poles and the bidirectional arrows represent relations between them.

It means that the poles and their relations form two incompatible (orthogonal) consistent systems, which we can see if we substitute the representations for poles with the representations for their relations and vice versa.

This can also be illustrated with overlaying grids of the two consistent systems:

with one of them slightly displaced downwards to reveal their orthogonality.

The fundamental relation between these two systems is that one cell in the grid illustration of them corresponds to two cells in the other, and vice versa.

This relation does, however, reveal that the duality between “pole” and “relation” is relative, meaning that they can shift place. Poles may well be called “relations” and relations called “poles” within consistency. The relation between them is simply that of a tilt between two orthogonal systems.

Reality can thus be described consistently wih any of these two orthogonal systems. The problem is, however, that since none of these descriptions can be correct on its own, there has to be a kink somewhere. This kink is that one of the descriptions ends in paradox whereas the other ends in ambiguity. There is thus no way to arrive to a single unambiguous (and thus non-contradictory) description of reality.  We can go from one to the other, but we can’t fuse them, because one is paradoxically contradictory and the other is ambiguous.

The meeting point of these two approaches is the (cladistic) idea of a single true tree of life. which, thus, is totally wrong, that is, being both paradoxically contradictory and ambiguous at the same time. Nothing can be more wrong.

The problem with this idea isn’t, however, the notion that biodiversity has a common origin in itself, ie, of evolution, but that there is a single true description of this origin. There simply is no such thing. Instead, the idea that there is, is historians’ wish that there would have been expressed as a claim that there is. We can thus securely discard this claim. Such thing does not exist, has not existed and will never exist. It is nothing but a brain ghost.

Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/