I've talked alot about Post-Binary, but now it's time in my career to flush this pipe-dream out into a cohesive sorta-kinda-critical theory ("sorta-kinda because it's not just descriptive, which is good because post-binary is anti 100%'s)
So, here's my first attempt.
First, a little history. The term "Post-Binary" was first used in the 80's to describ the multitude of emerging gender choices. "Post-Binary Gender Choice" describes sexual affilitations that go beyond just "man" and "women", or "straight" and "gay". Much like post-moderism, the feminists where once again onto something. So, I took this idea and applied to logic systems. Jean Boudrillard (may he rest in peace) braught to the table the idea of Binary Oppositions in society, and Derrida discussed in his essay on "Differance" how we use binary oppositions to define words. To be clear, a "Binary Opposition" is two polar opposits with seemingly nothing inbetwwen that are used to describe eachother. Right/Wrong, True/False, ect.
Basicaly, "Post-Binary" discards these binary oppositions as being sufficent enough to prove eachother. Saying something is not true is not necissarly enough to prove it false, something not right isn't wrong, ect. Think of Post Binary being a line that fades gradually from black to white, and Classical logic as a series of black and white dots. Even in Fuzzy Logic, which is a logic system, different degrees of true and false, it's still in terms of true or false. "Maybe" isn't just deffined as "maybe", it's deffined as 50% true and 50% false. Fuzzy Logic, while a step in my direction, is still bound to binary oppositions. Think of Fuzzy Logic as a digital photograph, and Post-Binary as an analouge photo. They poth can show the same tones, but digital does it by tiny dots of both black and white, while the other does it through an actual gray.
Back to Derrida, the structuarlist and deconstructalists said we where bound to a prison of iconography. The real is hidden behined a prison gate of language, and once we learn language we can never again experiance "the real" as it exists from a phenemolgical stand point. But I think that this prison is only so small because of the binary oppositions we use to describe it. Indeed, if the nature of language is a series of "it looks like this" and "it doesn't look like this" to descibe our surroundings, we only ever get an approximation of the real. But if we where not bound to that relativism, then the word itself would have more intrinsic meaning, and perhapse what we are actually periving will come ino sharper focus.
Anyway, this idea is starting to grow on my nerves, and is eating my head out (reinventing how we percieve the world proved harder than I thought), so I'd thought I'd put it out there and see what people thought. Give me input! Give it to your professors! I want to know how I'm doing.