What makes any neutral zone so ambiguous must be our idea's habitual dualism.
In other words, what makes us gray zone is just our idea's habitual pattern in which we could unconsciously devide two sides value assessment.

Nevertheless, nobody could indicate that habit dragging not two sides zone's ambiguity.

E.g. at language activity, we use next conversation.
"Was that park you went to yesterday so larger?"
To it, asked one could reply like next.
"Not so large, rather so small, only narrowed space it had there."

However, after all we only could two polars' expression, actually, being larger or not as only dualistic mentioning. 

                            BIG, LARGE ‐‐‐‐ SMALL, NARROW

Then, so stark, how can we express not so bigger, larger neither nor smaller, narrower extent at that park's interpretation.

By the way, for making us clear about this proposition, as first premise, one suggestion must be necessary here.

That is lke next.

                               OBJECTIVISM( conventional idea )
However, upper idea must have shortage at mentioning one's subjectivity.
ABSENCE OF SUBJECTIVITY'S IDENTITY AND OBJECTIVITY

Because pure objectism is already premised only objective view's superiority.
But essentially, that view could be derived from our subjective decision at viewing anything objectively.
Then, necessarily we must make another typed objective view's correctness, though, necessarily new typed it should be provided in front of us.

That new model of another objectivism must include subjective identity and its objective interpretation.

This trial necessarily characterizes the consciousness phase's switching from DUALISM to TRIPLE-ISM.(from next time on, abreviated version TRIPLISM could be used)

As premise to evidence that swtiching's correctness, let's submit triplism'sb justification in thkinking process.

Necessarily, we, in daily having idea on our mind, next four patterns could be thought.

                                                   
                                         OBJECTIVELY REGARED OBJECT     　 ❶

                                         SUBJECTIVELY REGARDED OBJECT     ❷

                                         OBJECTIVELY REGARDED SUBJECT 　❸

                                         SUBJECTIVELY REGARDED SUBJECT  ❹ 

Nevertheless, at the matter of fact, if we carefully inspect these category, each one's gravity
is not the same, the thing is easily proved, bexause ❷ and ❸ could opted object is different from each other. Though obviously these consciousnesses are mutually completely different.
However, left two cognitions could not be satisfied at this dimensional intepretation.

Because, ❶ and ❹ are essentially both perfectly divided at subject and object, and at this term, at the matter of fact, these perfectly differentiated view could have the same method and actually these things could be regarded what could be easily replaced with each other, in other words, we with the premise consciousness at subjectively regarded subject, for the first time could obtain objectively regarded object, thereby, necessarily we could induct next interpretation and necessarily it could be seen deductive truth.

                                                  ACQUIRED INTERPRETATION

                          To conventional interpretation, we can revise other it like next.    
       
                   ❶ and ❹ are systematized at view in which any side could easily switch to                               each other. Because objectively regarded e.g. trees could be interpreted only
                     with subjectively regarded myself. Though these two items could get joint and
                     replacement, in other words, ❶ is based on ❹, ❹ is based on ❶.

                    Against that pair, ❷ and ❸ mean each completely different dimensional 
                    condition, we could comprehend so easily.
                    Because as following trees and myself in example, we could regard that
                    trees given cognition by myself(❷)and myself given cognition by trees and any 
                    other thing except myself (❸）in my regard are mutually perfectly different                              dimensional condition. In other words that must never make transitive running                          like ❷ and ❸.

In other words, OBJECTIVELY REGARED OBJECT❶ could easily make transition to 
SUBJECTIVELY REGARDED SUBJECT ❹. Because these things are at symmetrical 
relevance at situated condition. In other words, these things are given presence in the same
dimensional "one world". Thus these are able to make running in chain, paraphrasing it, atb one context, we'd join with.

BECAUSE, 
OBJECTIVELY REGARDED TREES(by myself) ARE EASILY looked by e.g. SUBJECTIVELY REGARDED MYSELF.

Otherwise, 

'SUBJECTIVELY REGARDED MYSELF' EASILY look at 'OBJECTIVELY REGARDEDTREES'(by myself)

Nevertheless, the relevance between ❷ and ❸ is unable to get the same running as these
natures' irrelevant combination as impossbile in joining with each other

IN OTHER WORDS, 'SUBJECTIVELY REGARDED TREES'(by myself) COULD NEVER BE REPLACED NOR JOINTED WITH 'OBJECTIVELY REGARDED MYSELF' ✡
Because these former and latter are at completely different dimensional mentionings.

Logically extent view in this interpretation has no contradiction.

✡ 'SUBJECTIVELY REGARDED TREES' means subjectively introspective myself in premise.
Meanwhile,  'OBJECTIVELY REGARDED MYSELF' could be acquited only afterward once I could have a view around trees I that moment looked at subjectively, in other words, these two situations are at the level of consciousness perfectly divided. In other words these make no one subsequent running in ordered dimension.

Wiith those all alalyzed processes, we could deduct that logical interpretation wih serially indicated those four items with ❶, ❷, ❸, ❹ must have converted possibility at from it to

❷｜ ❸｜❶→❹

In other words, from dualism with each other different dimensional views with subject and object in relevance of intensions and extensions, not only subject and object in relevance and symmetrical combination but also one view's situated condtional modus ponens in regard.

And necessrily, we could assess that these consciousness's swtiching means view's composite condtion's mutual difference taken into account one sentence's context setting in mind idea's process could be implied at this trial.
Additionally, if the trial could be successful, as I mentioned first as

("Was that park you wnet to yesterday so larger?"
To it, asked one could reply like next.
"Not so large, rather so small, only narrowed space it had there.")

To its conversation implying nature that only symmetrically mentioned larger or smaller, or large or small, in interepreting of adjrctive's two polars' nature's usage, we could step one dimensional questioning at "What makes us adjective's dualism dependent usage in daily life, and we must comprehend true reason "how we regard not two polars' exetent as nevertheless neither neutral nor mederate nature attending that so larger exetent domain's presence, so definitively".

(to be continued)

Dec. 2nd.        2021