Is there anything is the world that doesn't have "way round"?

I'm doing a lot of graphics coding at moment and the most difficult thing is making sure that things are the same way round.

So with symmetrical objects we can be talking of one side or the other. Or we can be talking of forward/back. Is largest value in a dimension the front or the back of the object. But with angles we can be talking clockwise/anticlockwise. For everything that has a +ve value it also has a meaningful -ve value, and confusing the direction is a disaster.

Obviously this carries on in more abstract worlds. In the UK parliament is split between the incumbent party and the opposition, they are Right and Left of the speaker in the Commons. The origin in fact of Right and Left wing and in UK politics the opposition is still rarely in power and the ruling establishment still holds power on the Right even after all these years of supposed democracy and liberalism.

And this carries on to even more abstract levels where ideas themselves collect together in coherent worlds or thesis, which are countered by opposing ideas and all the things which don't fit into the model.

The only way to escape this is to have a Totality which has no opposition or room outside itself. In this way there is no other way for things to be, there is just one way around.

But this blog is very much based on the observation that such a thing would present its own opposition. Why for instance, whatever form that Totality takes, is it like this? Such a question is a "meta question" (from Hofstadter) and already lies outside the Totality. And so begins his Strange Loops etc. Even these have a up and a down as we move through "levels." It seems there is always a way to escape the stationary and have a "way around."

So by SRH we focus immediately on the one obvious candidate: "way around" itself. Does "way around" have a way around? That is to say taking an object for example when we ask of it which is the front and which is the back, can we apply that same question of orientation to the process of orientation itself. Can the orientation of an object have an "orientation" itself? Obviously by metaphor or "isomorphism" as ideas don't have a physical shape. When we orient something is that process oriented?

Well we run into SRH problems. You see if we need an Orientation() function that decides which orientation something is in, we are in big trouble if that function itself needs Orientation? We just already know what orientation the orientation function is in, in order to use it on something else. Standard SRH. If we don't even know which "way around" are way around is then the results of using it are useless.

Consider Hegel's famous Kantian telescope. That has an orientation. You look one way things are bigger, look the other things are smaller. When we "turn it around" we just turn it around, there is no orientation to negotiate before we start orienting it. If we needed to orient our orienting function then we have no way to know which orienting function we are using.

This is a complex way of saying the "Normative" as argued by G. E. Moore (1925) , "A Defence of Common Sense." You have to start somewhere, and that is the shared and assumed world and culture from which you come.

So "way around" does not itself have a way around. And that means as usual, and as SRH suggest, that "way around" is not a universal truth.

But that does leave that one problem of SRH. By its own theory it cannot be a total theory. SRH cannot apply to SRH. Which is to say that because SRH is a theory which is broad enough to apply to itself, it cannot be total. Analogous to Godel's inconsistency. But SRH is not total, it confirms SRH over itself making it total. Russel's Paradox. But SRH is not just Russel's Paradox its the hypothesised reason why Russel's Paradox occurs. Its the very applying of something to itself which creates the very limit from which paradoxes are constructed. That is SRH. okay work to do must leave... keep pushing on this cos it will become clear...