On discussions about process, and the excluded middle

When we discuss processes in general terms, we encounter a problem that originates from the division of process into entities consisting of "beginnings" and "ends". The problem is that this division means that there also must be middles between the beginnings and the ends although the division does not include such middles, because this discrepancy means that the middles are paradoxically contradictory between beginnings and ends per definition (ie, the class middle is paradoxically contradictory between the class beginning and the class end) - if one such middle is a beginning, then it both precedes and succeeds an end (at the same time) per definition, whereas if it is an end, then it both precedes and succeeds a beginning (at the same time) per definition, which is paradoxically contradictory.

This problem is tricky to interpret. The fundametal question is whether it is a property of reality or just a consequence of our conceptualization of reality (ie, of abstracting reality). The answer to this question is extremely far-fetched, but can be found if we first consider that the question implies (1) that there is a clearcut difference between the two (ie, between reality and our conceptualization of reality), and (2) that we can conceptualize this difference. It means that the answer must be a conceptualization that bridges reality and our conceptualization of reality, which we, maybe surprisingly, already have, since we traditionally call the former "reality" and the latter "the abstract". The answer to the question is thus, maybe sursprisingly, that the problem IS our division of reality and our conceptualization of reality into "reality" and "the abstract" itself. The paradoxical contradiction in middles between beginnings and ends is thus a consequence of our own division "reality" and "the abstract" itself, ie, our division "reality" and "the abstract" itself makes middles paradoxically contradictory between beginnings and ends.

It means that the problem neither is a property of reality nor a consequence of our conceptualization of reality, but instead a consequence of our division "reality" and "our conceptualization of reality" itself, that is, a consequence of the division itself rather than a property of reality or a consequence of our conceptualization of reality. The problem simply emerges with our division "reality" and "the abstract" itself when we conceptualize reality. It resides in the difference between reality and our concepts itself. It is actually the relation between reality and our conceptualization of it itself.

This is the reason why it has been called "the excluded middle". If we accept this class (ie, middles), as cladistics does, then we instead exclude the difference between reality and the abstract, and thus also between beginnings and ends. We then thus exclude the division of process into entities consisting of "beginnings" and "ends" that we started with. This contradiction can we, as humans, live with, but not make sense of. Instead, the contradiction is impossible to formulate consistently. It may appear very "natural" to some of us, but can't be formulated consistently, because it is inconsistent. It is thus something we have to adapt to (eg, with an orthogonal system of classification of the Linnean kind), instead of something we can solve. It is actually a corollary of conceptualization itself.

Accepting this class of middles (ie, cladistcs) thus leads into paradoxical contradiction, and paradoxical contradiction is infinite recursion when searching it. Cladistics is thus infinite recursion.