Let's first look at the conceptual infrastructure of Life. Since Evolution has to find a way of resolving two kinds of stimuli - Descriptive and Proportional, would not Natural Selection favour Life whose sentient capacity divides into corresponding processing specialisations?
That is precisely how the brains of higher Life work; one side specialises in the Descriptive data, the other - in Proportional. The Arts and Sciences, so to speak...

A related question… Why should Evolution always favour infrastructures featuring one-sided specialisations?
Consider the contrary scenario - the left side of ambidextrous Life as likely to produce a survival consistent response as the right side.
   A handy back-up? To the contrary...
The aggregate processing capacity of such conceptual infrastructure has now become a Buridan's Ass pondering which haystack to choose. Never viable in any situation where a split-second delay in responding can mean the end.  Inevitably, one-sided capacities will eliminate it.

The “more things change the more they remain the same”… Of course, and it is because “The less things change the more different they become”.
Here, the “more /………/ ………/” plus “same / ………” can be inverted into
“………/………/ less” plus “………/ different”. Garbage in, so garbage out.

“Exception proves the rule”… What is the Descriptive Potential behind it?
“IF it's Sunday, THEN you're to clean up the room - that's the Rule”…Let us throw into it some “all less 1” exception - ”BUT not IF you've got the exams on Monday”. A new, albeit amended Rule emerges.
Nothing is being proven - rules can either be complied with or not. But they create a Potential for exceptions to be added and invariably - any exception AMENDS the Rule. A lot of difference between AMEND and PROVE.

“We all operate at only 10 % of our brain's capacity”... Or is it only “5 %”?
Decorating whatever Descriptive statement with a Proportion - the 10 %” in this example, hails from a long practice of creating instant Knowledge -
What evolutionary advantage could there be for Life to ever operate at less then the absolute, full-on 100 % of its conceptual capacity?
In fact, the imperatives of our social survival dictate quite the opposite - we are usually forced to improvise BEYOND our natural capacity and if caught-out - resort to excuses, blame-shifting, playing the victim, lying etc…

“Any possibility not contravening the known Laws of Nature does deserve careful consideration - including that of a God”. A pseudo-scientific fluff which opens itself to most cruel Proportional teasing -
   Which known Law of Nature is being contravened by postulating not “1” but “2 co-existing Gods” which eternally and omnisciently argue whether they in fact represent “1 same God” or “2 different Gods”? None.
Which known Law of Nature is being contravened by “God 1”pretending to be a human scientist and as trying to impress “God 2” by converting the entire Earth? None. Hey, what about “God 0”? And so on and so forth…
    In absence of a LIMIT, you can go on like that for years with a vocabulary of just 10 000 Descriptive Words and 100 Numbers interminably generating millions of “meaningful / plausible scenarios”. Whilst some shall always be more banal then others, each may only be answered with “I don't know” or “None” - no doubt accompanied by indignation of the commercially pious about trivializing something they market as sacred.
Contrast this with the claims of legitimate Science - it has long ago learned to forego the “…do not CONTRAVENE…” in favour of a LIMIT provided by the “…COMPLY with the known Laws of Nature…”

Descriptive Reality can be paradoxical - devise a concept Words CANNOT describe…
This touches upon the rawest of our social nerves, the LIMIT-less Potential for creating “meaningful / plausible scenarios” – our theories about Nature, ideologies, beliefs, religions, myths and fables, then expressing them with a Language which of necessity is completely plugged-in into humanity's MOST FREQUENT conceptual imagery.
You can take up such Descriptive challenge by postulating the Unknown - some outlandish property of Nature beyond the Known of Science…
But however hard you try, you can't do it without the concepts and Words of the Known…And afterwards - is it something Words can describe or they cannot…?
   But couldn't your Unknown be so otherworldly that no Language - either on Earth or indeed elsewhere in the Cosmos, can ever attach itself to it. An Unfathomable and Indescribable Mystery…
Why not… if you perform that shtick with enough panache, it could pay-off a mortgage or two and maybe even put your kids through college…

“The views of others should be respected”.
If so, then a contrary view, namely that “The views of others should NOT be respected”, should also be respected…
Usually, those spreading such manure crave our respect by virtue of being able to open their mouth and express a view – regardless of its merit.
“The right of others to EXPRESS a view should be respected” - that's the crux of this matter. As for those views themselves - they must still win our respect on merit. Here, the surest way of scoring merit points is to uphold “The right of others to EXPRESS a view should be respected” ideals across the world every day.

 “We all make our own luck”. Such bluster is best brought to heel by asking why the concept and Word “luck” became a part of our social awareness…
At the dawn of Tribal existence, a pleasing phenomenon has been noticed - naturally arising situations beyond our prior control can sometimes reward us vastly “more >” then our MOST FREQUENT expectations. GOOD luck…
Unfortunately, behind Descriptive Reality's trifling enchantment resides the calm SYMMETRY of Proportional “least / less / equal / more / most”, which ensures that circumstances beyond our prior control will also guide us into emergency wards, cemeteries, divorces or bankruptcies. BAD luck.
The reason? Proportional Reality always “diverges” SYMMETRICALLY in  every Descriptive Context.

Descriptive Reality is often confused with the Proportional in capacities for providing formal, equation-based proofs…
A clear signal; “But you can't prove your statement A, can yer…?” It's best to simply turn it around; “All I've said about A is already “the proof of A” –kindly prove that it isn't”.
The eyes blink, the brain regroups and strikes hard; “But your statement A was just an assumption…”
“Is your present statement about the status of my statement A itself not an assumption…?” But it rarely registers and when it does, a friendship or two can be put at risk.

Could any Reality-relevant Topology ever be consistently based on fewer then 3 Dimensions?
If relevance to Reality is the sole criterion, then all our assumptions about “2-D surfaces” seem in error.
    Four questions –
1. How many examples of GEOMETRIC FLATNESS arise in any possible Reality? Only 1 - all other examples are its perfectly “equal” clones.
2. How many “un-equal” examples of GEOMETRIC CURVATURE arise in any possible Reality? The infinity.
3. Into how many “un-equal” GEOMETRIC VARIATIONS can each of such examples additionally diverge? The infinity.
4. Finally, what in any possible Reality is the likelihood of a surface NOT being CURVED? It is 1-in-the Infinity-of-infinities.
So, it is wrong to see “3-D” surfaces as an extension Topology just had to build on the “2-D” surfaces out of logical necessity - both are Descriptively “different” and Proportionally “un-equal” animals.
And with the “2-D” guys having but an infinitesimal standing in the scheme of things, one wonders how all these renowned thought experiments based
on “2-D > 3-D” transition contribute to our grasp of Reality.

“Expect the unexpected” - a LIMIT-deficient example of street-wise bravura,
all too often mistaken for friendly advice. No shortage of fireworks either - the “unexpected” becoming the “expected” by being the “unexpected”…
   But that is not the key problem… For any practical purposes, which ONE from amongst the thousands of “meaningful / plausible scenarios” which we can so effortlessly conjure-up as the “POTENTIAL unexpected”, should we be expecting? Surely, not all at one time - we'd risk being certified...
In any Universe, Life shall be most likely to survive by betting on whatever happens within its Environment MOST FREQUENLTY – the “expected”. The conditions here don't favour the disingenuous…
Obviously, the “unexpected” does happen and when it hits us - it's often to our disadvantage. But with our entire existence revolving around the MOST FREQUENT occurrences, frequency of the “unexpected” is just insufficient for forming consistent strategies about our Future.

Could “1 particle” be simultaneously in “2 places”? Modern Science does encourage this Proportional interpretation of Descriptive Reality…
Experiments leading to it suggest that in some circumstances, a “particle” superimposes its Effects throughout the Volume substantially larger then the “equal” of its MOST FREQUENTLY displayed properties.
But does that particle DOUBLE itself into “2 same particles” adjacent to one another or separated by a Distance? Does that purported occurrence lead to the DOUBLING of that “1 particle's” Proportion of electro-Mass?
But that is just what “being in 2 places” shall mean MOST FREQUENTLY in the Proportional Language of any sentient Life in any Universe.
It's more consistent to say 1 unit of Matter may “create an appearance” of being simultaneously in 2 places - especially since at that level we're only observing layers upon layers of appearances.

“The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability”. Eh…?
Where does the CONCEPT “to falsify” originate from, what is its Potential?
Some “theories” or “hypotheses” are testable some are not. Those that are testable generate a cognate Potential - they can be “falsified” or “verified” for the given case.
With both such possibilities arising from one generic Potential - TO TEST, no “verification” can take place without simultaneously embodying within it the Potential for “falsification” and vice-versa. Which is to be preferred or
what are the FREQUENCY implications here?
   Ever since Perception had emerged some four hundred million years ago, Life's sentient faculties had advanced by observing “what IS”, then quickly “verifying” it with its Actions and most recently - its Language.In this context, accepting a sentient limbo till the presumed “what IS” may or may not be “falsified” - whilst not inconsistent, it far too tentative for the MOST FREQUENT situations of our Social Existence.
Further, suggesting it doesn't address any clear shortcomings in our quest for Knowledge, such as NOUN Factuality Transfer or “intellectual abuse” of Children, for example…

 “All Cretans are liars said Epimenides the Cretan…” True? False? Both?
Combining the Proportional “less / equal / more” with Descriptive NOUNS “truth” and “consistency”, a contemporary reworking of this millennia-old paradox is now widely assumed to have demonstrated the Incompleteness of Mathematics. We'll see…
Let's compress the gist of it to “If TRUE - then X” / “If Y - then FALSE”, then concentrate on “If TRUE - then X”
   Which concept will Word “true” connect to if its “perceptual make-up” is distorted by the removal of just one letter - as in say, tuth, truh or trut?
None - the Descriptive features of such orthographic fragments correspond to nothing that our Memory immediately associates with.
But suppose you will find a “……fulness” at the end - what is its function ?
The perceptual difference between the Words “truth” and “truth / fulness” projects into our social domain the difference between concepts of “truth” and “truth / fullness”. What is different inside your head remains different outside it.

Next, let's look closely at the “same / different” within the Adjective “true” -
1. Overwhelmingly, its MOST FREQUENT usage relates to COMMENTS on statements describing the empirical sum-total of our lives. 
This frequency gives “true” its commonly understood meaning and leads to our intuitive expectations about its Future usage.
2. In its LEAST FREQUENT form, “true” can be used to a different end – to directly or indirectly COMMENT on the statement it is a part of.
At best, this semantic anomaly is only of perfunctory consistency and its propensity for enticing the unwary into un-decidable mazes had been well documented across the Ages.
But we also have to understand that allowing two cognate but “different” concepts to be domiciled within the “same” Word will sooner or later lead to intellectual mischief-making -
In principle, there's nothing wrong with using the LEAST FREQUENT “true” provided we are immediately informed about it. But rather then implicitly weaving through ten pages of a mathematical argument, this information must be disclosed within “perceptual make-up” of the Word “true” itself.
Thus, while the usage of “true” remains unchallenged, a bright “perceptual marker”, say “quasi…..”, “meta…..”, “para…..”, is a must if the difference between the “self-referential true” and the “empirical true” is readily to be perceived by us  and conceptualised.
Only then - after an appropriate disclosure, can this Word's role within the argument be duly examined.
   One possible result; “If quasi-TRUE then X” / “if Y then quasi-FALSE”.
Once this happens, all that's left is tedious exotica of a “hypothesis” which can't even be wrong. It merely misuses “true” - exploiting our intuitive trust in its MOST FREQUENT “perceptual make-up” and History-old meaning.

How many DIMENSIONS can there be in any possible Universe?
As ought to be self-evident by now, the factual number of “dimensions” in any Universe will not be decided by metaphysical debates within Science, but by the “perceptual make-up” of NOUNS translating that concept to a broader scientific audience.
Consider the “same / different” of DIMENSIONS. Only three correspond to the “same” – indeed “identical” concept, and therefore - to its “identical” linguistic Description.
Hence, any concept NOT corresponding to that “identical” Description - but also deemed worthy of the NOUN “dimension”, must disclose that non-correspondence in the “perceptual make-up” of its NOUN.
“We propose that “3 dimensions of Space” and “1 para-dimension of Time” quantify the Universe more comprehensively then the Prior Art, etc…etc…” Good, good - let's hear your supporting arguments…
   Now, we can examine those arguments in context of what the “para…” has disclosed – namely, that the concept behind NOUN “dimension” linked to Time is “different” to the concept behind NOUN “dimension” linked to Space. Just as before - what is different inside your head remains different outside it.
   Isn't it all too pedantic? To the contrary… The Sciences arise exclusively from within the Descriptive Reality of IDEAS – the Numbers of Proportional Reality are just their blindly complicit servants. Hence, until we give every Word describing an IDEA the scrupulous attention Mr. Micawber would be proud of - even the most inspired juggling of Numbers cannot save us from chasing pseudo-scientific apparitions if generic inconsistencies within the “same / different” had been overlooked or ignored.

“We know what happens when society abandons God…”
Such mutterings, darkly hinting at the crimes perpetrated by communism can easily be inverted into “We know what happens when a society doesn't
abandon God” - pointing to the crimes of nazism and to guidance Religion implicitly gave in the selection of at least 6 million of its victims…
That kind of anecdotal ping-pong only diverts attention away from the main game towards marginally different forms of dictatorship and the historical perspective becomes obscured by wasteful point scoring.
   Like any other “repetitive pattern”, the phenomenon of Religion is a mix of Descriptive and Proportional aspects. Since it is largely Descriptive, the “same / different” of Religion can be rather illuminating -
Take Christianity, which over the last 2000 years provided a background for what was eventually to become our Western MODERNITY.
   What throughout those two millennia became “different” and what had remained the “same” about that Religion?
For well over one millennium after Constantine - until the French, American and Industrial Revolutions of the late 1700's, Christianity was the Taliban of Europe and all its dominions.
   What is “different” about it now?
Its nowadays obligingly polite hierarchy can no longer instigate or abet the intimidation, persecution, torture and murder of those whose only fault in life was to disagree with that Religion's Dogma.
Once its omnipotent decrees - which could decide the fate of Nations and snuff out human life as if it were that of a gnat - had to be abandoned, what used to be the Empire had evolved into an ingratiating Theatre of Religion -
Its talented Actors are now reduced to eloquently offering the “hypothesis of Afterlife” for a bit of loose change - quite a triumph for human Morality. And it's not the religious canons, but Secular Laws of MODERNITY that put an end to that Tradition of well-meant delusions…
   What is currently remaining the “same” about Christianity? The Dogma of
“…in the name of God…” – used as the JUSTIFICATION for its historically prevalent but presently prohibited misdeeds.

A thriving manufacturing centre of the Middle East… “What - Iraq? Gotta be kidding…”
“MADE IN IRAQ” A brand of technological excellence and a source of great pride to its people… “Gimme a break - this folk couldn't tie their goddamn shoelaces!”
Facetious, politically incorrect, culturally insensitive, hugely offensive - all of the above…But in the end, Iraq has plainly failed to meet the intellectual expectations of MODERNITY. It's the Iraqis, stupid…
   Let's look at the “symmetrical divergence” within that situation -
The “worst”? The peoples of that Region - not just the Iraqis, hadn't over the recent centuries made a single intellectual contribution to the creation, establishment and protection of MODERNITY now tenuously illuminating their lives from television screens and trips to the West.
“And who gave the world its Agriculture, its Numbers and Writing? Listen, we used Banks when you still slept in the caves!!!” Or so it goes...
   Who exactly is “we”? True, the extemporaneous use of “we” can establish a semantic link between present inhabitants of some Land and whatever happened upon it many millennia ago. But that's just a quirk of substituting the MOST FREQUENT meaning of NOUN “we” with its LEAST FREQUENT meaning - nothing to bet your house on.
And at first, such claims could seem like a puerile bluff one shouldn't take any notice of. But no - this folk are adamant that glories of the Antiquity are in fact a guarantee of their contemporary intellectual prowess and they'd stake their lives on it. Yet it is also this cultural fantasy that had prevented the Iraqi psyche distinguishing “liberation” from “occupation” - a problem set to persist for a while.
   The “best”? These people possess a somewhat harsh sense of HONOUR. Indeed, other factors being “equal” - in many situations you are more likely to be sold down the river by a Westerner then an Iraqi…
Put in a service of Nation-building, those stern ethical attitudes could well provide the foundations of enduring civil accountability, without which no peoples across the breadth of History had ever prospered - or ever will.

What should a new phase of that Nation-building be based on? Surprise, surprise - MANUFACTURING.
Imagine the Iraqis waking one day to a message “75 BILLION DOLLARS” emblazoned across their blue skies. A miracle long foretold? Nope…
It's the amount of “MADE IN IRAQ” manufactures the West commits to buy each year for the next ten years on ALL WESTERN TAX EXEMPT basis.
But who exactly is that altruistic West? Realistically, it's the United States and Great Britain, possibly Japan…
   “Let's say this starts tomorrow – how do I make a dollar out of it?” you may now very sensibly ask.
If you are currently buying a billion dollars worth of computers from Asia, then forget the “MADE IN IRAQ” angle - that country doesn't even remotely possess the experience, skills and talents required.
But if you are a mid-tech company – electrical Tools, Appliances, etc…then back-of-an-envelope calculation could be the starting point for sourcing a billion dollars worth of such products at first only assembled in Iraq -
“Hmmm… I'm paying well over $100 million each year in WESTERN TAXES on my China stuff. Heck, even if keeping my Iraqi fixers happy has to cost $25 million per year - then in ten years I could still be a billion in front and my retailers throughout the West maybe double that. Yeah, why not run it past my execs and see how the sums stack-up…”
   But who is to build the now largely absent industrial infrastructure – the modern factories and ports, power plants, roads, etc…? These effortlessly materialise out of Forward Contracts whenever such Contracts are founded on solid TAX ADVANTAGES - a most fascinating spectacle of International Commerce.
Yet this can often be surpassed by an even greater, social spectacle - the supreme pragmatism with which Manufacturing and Commerce douse out the hateful flames of IDEOLOGIES.

Now take a glance at an illustrious page of Western History - “Japan, 1950”. Seeing nothing but impoverishment around yet aware just how significant Meiji Restoration had proved a century earlier, General McArthur called for help of W. Edward Deming - one of America's foremost experts in Quality Control. Deming's marching orders - “TEACH JAPAN QUALITY!” were to subsequently revolutionize the Art of Manufacturing not only in Japan but across the Western World. And surreal as it sounds, today's Iraq painfully awaits its OPERATION DEMING.
   By the way, with the Quality of its products now providing an ornament to humanity - guess who is Japan's highest Prize for technological excellence named after…

Since an Action is the precursor to Words which upon aeons of Linguistic Evolution will emerge to describe it, could observing Actions reinforce the process of Factuality Transfer?
Imagine yourself in 1930's Germany… A venal, but “meaningful / plausible”
screeching about lebensraum is followed by a most spectacular Action -
“Rechts!” - a 50 000-strong military formation seamlessly re-arranges itself by one “equal” geometric Proportion. The crowds gasp in disbelief…
   “How brilliantly thought-out was that…” you'll ponder over the following months - mesmerised not so much by the linguistic message you've heard but by the Action itself.  After all, this was the INTENT behind that Action.
Could the impressive factual consistency of such an Action reinforce your belief in the factual merit of IDEAS it was associated with? Evidently in great many cases it did - at a resulting cost of some 50 million lives…

Actions may reinforce your belief in the factual merit of various perceptual phenomena. The social Action of Applause resounding around you does reinforce your opinion that Sounds you've just heard possess the factual merit of Music… What is Music?
If you enjoy Music, you will find that a “melodic phrase” being played only CONFIRMS what your mind has already played from memory but a moment earlier…And that's the crux of MUSIC - our Memories consider its “melodic phrases” worthy of retention for future enjoyment.
Not that such enjoyment is invariably guaranteed; an orchestra may strike a false note or loose tempo, a vocalist sound inept… Why can such faults be comprehended? A distinguishing property of Music is its Potential for being performed BADLY…
“Hey, I've heard that passage performed far better before” your Memory of its good performance will often passionately interject.
   All else is SOUND EFFECTS… Not that they need be entirely deficient in merit. They can engage our senses, be consistent with the contexts of Film and Opera, be grist in the mill of Music-related training ensuring continuity of erudition in the technical aspects of Sound, be a great vehicle for one's musical AMBITIONS - later to be often expressed in desperate instrumental inventiveness…
But they lack one crucial Quality - the spark of Talent essential for creating a few “melodic phrases” which our Memories would involuntarily embrace, then hold dear for future phrase-anticipation.
Inevitably, perceiving the Action of Applause - which for reason of a social ritual rewards Music as well as the Sound Effects, transfers the artistic merit of the former onto the latter, along with its NOUN “Music”.
Why should we so instinctively enjoy the process of anticipating the NEXT “melodic phrases” of Music?
Why should Natural Selection favour Life most adept at anticipating the NEXT “survival phrases” of its Environment? That story began almost half a billon years ago.

No Society may be viable either on Earth or elsewhere in the Universe if it's Laws fail to restrain the behaviour of its members.
Let's examine this Potential in context of the most enchanting kind of order that Reality can impose on Matter – the SYMMETRICAL “divergence” within its COMPLEXITY. And it is not only the Proportions of STRUCTURES that “diverge” in every Descriptive context but so do their after-effects - be they Thoughts, Emotions, Senses or indeed, the situations which Law INTENDS to prohibit or regulate -
But unlike the generic “divergence” into “least / less / equal / more / most”, Laws “diverge” only within the “least / less /………/ more / most”.
   So, where's the “equal”? It can have a contextual expression of “maybe”, as in “No / maybe / Yes”. Indeed, “maybe” - a bane of Law, is important to understanding it, but merely as a “directional” extension of “equal” into the
“< less”/………/ “more >”…
   Let's examine this Potential as a basis for legislative Draft EXPLAINING to Society the CONCEPTUAL INTENT of say, “Law A” -
1.   The “least” - situations in which “Law A” does not apply. ( A “No” )
2.   The “less” - situations in which “Law A” could reasonably be presumed to apply, but does not. ( A “maybe” )
3.   The “more” - situations in which “Law A” could reasonably be presumed
     not to apply, but it does. ( A “maybe” )
4.   The “most” - situations in which “Law A” does apply. ( A “Yes” )

Because sentient faculties of Life depend on its grasp of “sameness” and all situations covered by Segment 1 are assumed to be “different” from the “intent of Law A”, Segment 1 isn't necessary – the transition from “same” to “different” is already taken care of by Segment 2.
The remaining Segments 2, 3 and 4, Proportionally increasing the degree of “sameness”, are functional and are being tediously and expensively tested in courtrooms throughout the world every day…
The next step is even more important; SOCIAL COMREHENSION of each of   these valid Segments should now be further enhanced by a set of say, 5 plainly written EXAMPLES illustrating their increasing congruence with the “intent of Law A”.
   Taking all valid “conceptual discontinuities” into account, then providing clear examples of their applicability, it's all that can happen to Law-drafting any possible Universe. What's the situation on Earth?
   “FOG… FOG… FOG…”
Here, the Laws - a PUBLIC PROPERTY, are being deliberately drafted and adjudicated in a rapacity-driven SLANG necessitating their re-translation to Empirical Language at $ 300 plus per hour… But then, Public Integrity also “diverges” from the “most” towards - all too frequently, the “least”.

Not long ago a gallant nose-dive into the “Knowns / Unknowns” has led to some mirth in geo-political locker rooms … But examining it provides a yet another glimpse into the SYMMETRY within generic COMPLEXITY -
Let's divide-out within Potential of the “Known” its two cognate meanings; “known of” and “known”, the latter meaning “being understood”.
   The “Knowns / Unknowns” always result in a permutation of 4 outcomes -
1. The “known Knowns”; run-of-the mill things we already “understand” and obviously, know of.
2. The “known Unknowns”. Take Gravity – we've known of it for millennia but still don't “understand” how or why it works. It's our “known Unknown”
3. The “unknown Knowns”; the things that OTHERS already “understand” but we still don't have any inkling of.
4. The “unknown Unknowns”. During the 19^th Century, the “entanglement” was the “unknown Unknown” - nobody knew about it. But once it has been discovered in the 20^th it became our “known Unknown” of Part 2 - for again, we still don't “understand” how or why it works.
   The Universe is undoubtedly still full of the “unknown Unknowns” which will one day become our “known Unknowns” then “known Knowns” - while remaining the “unknown Knowns” to others… But in the end you could just roll your eyes and ask “What's your point…”

“Does a barber shave all those who don't shave themselves?”
If the barber does shave “him / self”, then …etc… Conversely, if the barber doesn't, then …etc…
The present Description of this paradox has not segregated each of its four SYMMETRICAL and mutually exclusive Potentials -
1.“One's self / shaving” and “others' non / self / shaving” are invertible as -  2. “One's non / self / shaving” and “others' self / shaving”.
   Intuitively, it may all seem Descriptive…
But the concept of OTHERS is “all less then 1” which contextually excludes the barber.
Once this Proportional Potential is addressed, a pedestrian “Does a barber, the “1”, shave all (others) who don't shave themselves”, is all that remains of that quandary.

Once the Descriptive layers of social ingratiation are stripped-off the Law Industry, you touch the Proportional bedrock of our Social Existence - the Numbers. And it is the Numbers that tell us what's real and what's not -
Suppose that cost of pursuing some legal dispute is $ 50 000. If the Assets of three individuals are $ 30 000, $ 300 000 and $ 3 000 000 as a result of the “less / equal / more” divergence in their earning capabilities - what are the social consequences of such a natural disparity?
   To begin, the $ 30 000 individual is probably not even at a starting line…
Let's assume the $ 300 000 person has been dull enough to fight a $ 50 000
dispute with the one who has $ 3 000 000. After the dispute had trundled its convoluted path over the legal potholes, turnpikes and detours confronting both protagonists - the $ 300 000 person can well loose a house and family,
while the opponent is laughing with $ 2 500 000 still left in the pocket. “Let this send a message to the future riff-raff and now - get me some tax advice on those legal costs!”
“We sell Justice to the highest bidder”, let this be your interpretation of the fraudster's motto “We are all equal before the Law” currently flashing like a garish neon sign above the entrances to Western courts.

How do you become say, a washing machine repairer?
Within Descriptive Reality, you'll have to concentrate on the “sameness” of the task at hand. Within Proportional Reality, you'll simply have to commit yourself to the “more >” of that task…
Hence, the “more >” of the “same” allows you to become ever “better >” in your chosen SPECIALISATION of “repairing washing machines”...
After a year, you might realize that learning your trade consists primarily of remembering the Past mistakes - then not repeating them. In several years, having made most of the mistakes possible, you could become reasonably proficient at your skills…
   Now suppose that you've overheard this remarkable conversation - 
“Here are the tools, sir – we want you to repair this washing machine…”
“Are you're kidding me? I'm a goddamn bricklayer – no can do…”
Of course you can! We've got college professors, debt collectors, doctors, pastry cooks  - you name ‘em, repairing our washing machines all the time because it is their civic duty…”
“OK. will try. But hold it – what if I screw-up and some poor housewife gets
electrocuted?
“Don't worry, we'll get a dentist or a road worker to check the wiring next time around. In the meantime, just do your best - fulfill your civic duty”

This intellectual obscenity, defying two of the most fundamental Potentials of our Social Existence - “sameness” and “more >”, is being marketed to us as a pinnacle of jurisprudence; the trial by Jury.
Not that the Jurors are at fault here. They are being cynically dragged away
from their “specializations” with one pecuniary objective; to make mistakes in a strange mirror-hall of the “different” and “least”.
Cui Bono? The ever-sympathetic Law Industry - the “more >” mistakes, the “more >” Money is subsequently made from dissembling on such mistakes.

GLOBALIZATION… This supposed panacea to the world's economic woes
does have an intriguing self-referential aspect to it…
   Suppose you are a professor of Economics in some Western university, specializing in international trade and dutifully promulgating the message about “a need to keep the borders open”, “break down the barriers stifling international trade” or “give the poorer countries better access to global markets”. Violins?
And if you're a real softie, the “Interests of the Consumer” will no doubt be foremost in your mind. “The consumers have a right to buy at the lowest possible price and we must meet their legitimate expectations…”
(You're forgetting that BUYING is only the consequence of having Money, and having Money is only the consequence of having a JOB - just a minor detail to which we'll come shortly)
   But it all makes sense and if there are doubts, your Theatre of Description will expertly sweep them aside with well-memorised propaganda. After all, being quick on your feet is what you're really paid for.
Uncomfortable Words “paid for” – for they culminate in comparisons which are wholly Proportional and devoid of any doctrinaire mush…
   Say, you're earning $ 150 000. Nice apartment, kids in college. But behind it all, a lot of on-going financial commitments that must be paid on time, or your ivory tower will quickly come crashing down…
One day the dean of your Faculty tells you to clear the desk in 15 minutes. Why? Another talented parrot from Backwardstan has also memorised your “globalisation doctrine” and will now lecture your Economics class via a teleconferencing plasma screen for just $12 a day.
   “Bud, why aren't you competitive…?”
And there isn't a single Western advocate of Globalisation – from Members of Parliament, Congressmen and would-be academics to social parasites exploiting the international disparities in the Costs of Living, whose activity could not, in principle, be satisfactorily be duplicated from overseas – and at a fraction of their fat salaries.

Had birds evolved from the dinosaurs? Vice-versa? Both? Let's look at the Descriptive and Proportional aspects of this after-dinner quandary -
Palaeontology has long known birds and dinosaurs share one “repetitive pattern of sameness” - a Skeletal Design not found in any other species. What are the Proportional consequences here?
   The physiologies behind that shared Skeletal Design invariably “diverge” into Proportions of “least / less / equal / more / most” in every Descriptive Context. Here, the Context is “An individual's capacity for converting Food into Bodily Mass solely according to the availability of that Food”.
   So, what happened?
That Descriptive Skeletal Design must have branched-off from its “arche-Design”, perhaps 200 hundred million years ago - initially as its “smallest” embodiment. Let's name it a species of “birdo-saurs” - Potentially birds or  dinosaurs…
Those at the “least” extreme of our Descriptive Context then retained their
“smallest / < smaller” structures… For however much Food was available - those physiologies couldn't convert it into Bodily Mass beyond what was essential for day-to-day surviving… Eventually, these “skinny birdo-saurs” were to develop feathers and flight, becoming our birds…
Meantime, “birdo-saurs” at the “most” extreme of that Descriptive Context kept gorging themselves on Food – just as dictated by their physiology.
   Within say, twenty million years the Bodily Masses of these “fatso birdo-saurs” grew to the ever “larger > / largest” Proportions of dinosaurs.
When much of the Food disappeared some 65 million years ago, only Life with the “least” Food requirements was left to rule the Earth…
   To conclude - birds did evolve from dinosaurs as much as dinosaurs had evolved from birds - with both species CO-EXISTING, retaining the “same” Skeletal Design within their respective Bodily Masses, but converting Food into these Bodily Masses to a physiologically “un-equal” extent.

Flap…flap…flap somewhere by the Amazon and a week later - you've got a hurricane half way around the world. This would-be insight doesn't lead to any testable consequences - but provides tinder-like fuel for the bonfires of pseudo-Science -
Here, its Equations amplify the “equal”, the “flapping of butterfly wings”, to the “larger > / largest” Proportion of its Descriptive Context - a rip-roaring hurricane. Fine…
But what's the “smallest equal” of this Descriptive Context? Some collision amongst a few air molecules – after all, they do move at 500 m/sec…
Consistent with the “same” Equations the “smallest equal” - the molecules, should first be amplified to the “median equal” - the wings, to establish one CAUSAL SEQUENCE “molecular effect > butterfly effect > hurricane” which will then encompass the entire Descriptive Context provided by Nature.
Considering the astronomical numbers of molecular collisions occurring in the Earth's atmosphere every second - where's all da hurricanes?

A Descriptive gem; many with apparently impeccable credentials delight in impressing the unwary with the following; the “1” may also be considered a non-terminating “0.999999……>”, eventually becoming the “1” in infinity, where everything always happens for the best of reasons.
First, “become” implies a “discontinuity”, which is clearly inconsistent with the CONCEPT of infinity. But a different approach can also be adopted -
Let's separate the first major value from the remainder of this sequence to obtain 1 = “0.9 + 0.099999…… >” We can now consider the initial “0.9” not to be “0.9” after all, but “0.899999…… >” which must duly become “0.9” in infinity.
But why stop? Is not the “0.8” an “0.799999……>” etc…Applying the formal
proposition the “1 can be considered “0.999999…>” to its fully consistent extent, we can endlessly create storms of Proportional dust beneath every available integer. To what Descriptive end?

The ratio between the radius of a circle and its circumference had been the subject of speculation across History. Some layabouts had even though it validates the “hypothesis of Divine Perfection”.
And indeed a radius always dissects circumference into 6 perfectly “equal” parts - not even a single point veering-off into “ < less /………/ more >”.
Construct an equilateral triangle, multiply it 6 times and you get a hexagon. Rotate that hexagon by 60 degrees and you get a circle.
It so happens the initial EQUAL remains constant through each of these 3 “different” Descriptive Contexts - “equilateral triangle > hexagon > circle”. It later MUST dissect that circumference to 6 perfectly “equal” Proportions.

No “equal” is so crucial to Social Existence as that of the PRICE. Instead of being nervously stranded in a nether-land of Potential “less /………/ more”, we just pay the nominated “equal” - say, $ 49.90 for a pair of trousers, then briskly move on to the next matter…
   But how was this $ 44.90 arrived at?
Usually, there're three functional discontinuities in the chain of Commerce; “supplier”, “distributor” and “retailer” - all trying to survive commercially by ensuring IN-goings are at least “equal” to OUT-goings, but preferably lead to Profit. Nothing wrong with Profit - but In a Modern Society it is high time for those “Profit-related cards” to be laid openly on the table of social scrutiny -
   The current practice -
The tag on say, a “carton of milk” displays only the FINAL PRICE - $0.75 for example. Whilst essential to a transaction, what does that price tag tell us about FAIRNESS in the chain of commercial relationships prevailing in our society? Nothing – all we see is advertising song and dance routines telling us how lucky we actually are to buy that milk at $0.75.
   The proposed practice -
Let such a tag now read say, “$ 0. 37 / $ 0. 52 / $ 0. 75” - DISCLOSING to the ultimate purchaser the actual sequence of transactions - from Dairy Farmer to Distributor, Distributor to Retailer. Why? We have the right to know who in our society is screwing whom. Hell, we're paying for it.

“Never COMMENT on a Nation or a Culture unless you've lived amongst its people, acquainted yourself with their customs and learned to appreciate their ways”.
Quite an injunction - “plausible / meaningful”, “emotively consistent” but it usually leads to suspect outcomes. So, what's wrong with it?
   Let's begin with the “< shorter /………/ longer >”. How long should you be living amongst some peoples to acquire the right of COMMENTING on their ways? Is it 1 year, maybe 5 or is it 10 or 20? The “more >, the merrier” - but suppose the reasonable “equal” here is 5 years…
A Descriptive point; “Is there a Culture or a Nation to which this injunction DOES NOT apply?” Of course not - this would mean discrimination…
Now with about 200 Nations presently on Earth, you would need to live for a thousand years before you may COMMENT on the ways of their peoples according to this injunction.
And if your COMMENTS aren't favourable - its proponent can always insist you should live amongst the particular peoples a little “longer >”, to really appreciate what makes those guys tick…
By now, you might spot a glint of cunning in the eyes of a social gangster who is indirectly imposing on you a far more sinister injunction - “Don't COMMENT on our system!”
   What is the way out? Ask your interlocutor a few directional questions -
1. “What over the last two centuries of Modernity did your Culture or Nation receive from Western Civilization?
2. “What, throughout that period, did Western Civilization receive from your Culture or Nation in exchange?”
3. “In which direction are people travelling in search of a better Future; is it INTO your Culture or Nation or OUT of it? And if it's OUT - how come…”

Consider the incurable, festering sore of the Middle East. Like any conflict in History, it combines the “less / equal / more” with the “same / different”.
But since it involves the “………/ equal / later >” of Democracy established on a Descriptively valid but Proportionally invalid basis – don't expect it to be resolved anytime soon, if ever…
Reality is not a mental clinic for humoring a Culture's millennia-old, inbred delusions about being millennia ago given an elevated status in humanity's EMPIRICAL scheme of things by whatever at the time was believed to be a “Creator of the Cosmos”.
Neither is it a booking agency providing unconditional return reservations to peoples whose ancestors of 2000 years ago were forced off the Land they couldn't defend. For all empirical purposes, to return is to re-conquer the Land its MOST RECENT inhabitants are now incapable of defending.
Unless this stark premise is recognised - any allegedly wronged peoples' claims to PRIOR occupancy of whatever Lands and to their unconditional return, have to be “equally” valid across History. Then?
   Inevitably, when the unsustainable durational Proportions are ignored in favour of Descriptive chanting about “God's Promised Land” - sight is lost of the only context in which empirical viability of establishing a homeland ought to have been dispassionately examined at the outset -
“Can this Land of our distant forbearers - now a vengeance-ridden sewer of Medieval backwardness, ever be a safe abode for the wounded children of MODERNITY?”
How could a Culture of so many extraordinary intellectual achievements so dismally fail to recognise its Empirical Promised Land - AMERICA…
   The key Descriptively context? There's only one context; the “sameness” of DEMOCRACY…
What is right about DEMOCRACY not only expiates whatever is supposedly wrong about it, but it overrides whatever is claimed to be right about any “dictatorship”, “satrapy” or “theocracy” it happens to be in conflict with…
So, when in doubt about the Middle East conflict - TRUST IN DEMOCRACY.

The Descriptive boil may fester interminably unless cut with a Proportional
lance. Assume the innovative genius and commercial ruthlessness of some Corporation enables it to corner say, 95% of the market - it might a vehicle
manufacturer, a potato grower, perhaps even a computer software owner…
Say it's a car-maker. Naturally, the officials charged with ensuring that the market isn't dominated by a monopoly will consider some equitable public-interest solution to the problem…
Is the Corporation's truck division to be hived off? Well…perhaps the sales division. No, maybe the innovations of the engine and transmission design should be made freely available to its largely ineffectual competitors…
Such Descriptive ruminations can last for years, consuming a great deal of public resources and eventuating in no public benefit whatsoever. Rather, they only reinforce the public's cynicism about the process…
The Word “monopoly” provides Descriptive Context for a near 100 % hold on the market, a Proportion. This might lead to the area of Taxation, whose function is collecting from a society the Proportions essential to financing its infrastructure.
   Let's assume a maximum, publicly acceptable share of the market is 60%. Taxing the offending 35 % of that Corporation's turnover by a Proportion sufficient to make its continuation commercially pointless will, in few short years, reduce that Corporation's hold on the market to 60 %. Why 60%?
The “same” reason we often make a driver's licence available at the age of 18 instead of 17 or 19. We convert intuitive, Descriptive interpretations into Proportional certainties - then simply get on with the business of living.

Let's look at an example of “different” malignantly splitting the “sameness” of our ECONOMY into two activities - INVESTMENT and “speculation”…
Assume you have invested a million dollars in some promising Business X.
Its management hires additional staff, develops a bit of extra get-up - which usually happens when extra Capital is injected, and if everything goes well you'll get say, 20% of the company's yearly Surplus. Historically, that has been the INTENT behind investing and without it - we would be relaxing in the cool comfort of our pre-historic huts…
   But your investment fulfils another Proportional Potential - you can divide
that 20% holding into “million scraps of paper”, spin an enticing story and sell it all to the largely un-informed public. Assume you've struck it rich - Life's endearing capacity for “mimicry” immediately takes over …
Everybody now wants to strike it rich in the “same” fashion - by peddling a story about Future Potential of THEIR “scraps of paper”… All they need is a steady supply of those “scraps” to wrap their stories around.
Multiplied by the billions of clones, those “scraps of paper” soon become a speculative tsunami which sweeps productive Capital out of the Economy  and into “pseudo-economic CASINOS” – distorting its aims and corrupting the productive aspirations of entire societies.