The current logical method of thinking uses categories to define a subject in ever-increasing limitations until the individual is uncovered. Not unsimilar to a gigantic game of Guess who.
Is it big or small? Dark or light? Loud or quiet? Complicated or simple? The problem with divisional categorisation is that it ask questions that require an invariable comparison.
How do we define our invariable? A man of 7ft has a different opinion on height compared to that of a 5ft woman in the same respect that an ant has a varied opinion on size compared to a microbe.
Derrida spoke of a nurtured opinion on polarisation. That our perceptions of difference are altered by the culture and society. One is inclined to agree with an added idea of physical and perhaps genetic differences can shape perception. A man of ‘average’ height is both tall and small when perceived by the 7ft man and 5ft woman. There exists duality.
Similarly, circumstance alters perception. At the top of the Eiffel tower and looking down at the tourists below, upon being asked to point out the tall people from the small what are you to say? Is it your distance that prevents you? Your circumstance? Or is it your ‘height’ which now allows you to perceive every person below as small? Circumstantial perception is as important as nurtured and natured perception.
Taking into account natural perception (perception defined by physical attributes) nurtured perception (perception defined by upbringing and mental sculpture by societal exposure) and circumstantial perception (perception defined by current situation, physical, mental, etc) where do we find truth?
When perception is defined by nature, nurture and circumstance, where is the neutral invariable where we can base truth?