4 - Bi-Directionality and the Linear Fallacy
This is an extremely important point.
In confused bi-directional terms (which characterises the nature of integration for the baby infant) opposite poles cannot be yet distinguished from each other (due to lack of sufficient differentiation).
Initially the diagonal polarities cannot be properly separated so that the infant cannot even distinguish existence from non-existence.
So existence is confused with non-existence (and non-existence with existence).
However once differentiation takes place enabling the separation of the two poles, bi-directional gives way to (unambiguous) one directional interpretation.
Thus in linear terms to distinguish existence and non-existence as separate terms is identical with their corresponding distinction in reverse order (i.e. non-existence and existence).
However in dynamic circular terms the order of terms is vital; thus the process by which form is distinguished from emptiness gives rise to two (opposite) complementary directions i.e. where emptiness is distinguished from form (as transcendence) and where form - in reverse manner - is distinguished from emptiness (as immanence).
Put another way, with (linear) differentiation, opposites gradually lose their dynamic complementary nature so that a (relative) bi-directional relationship is interpreted in (absolute) one-directional terms.
So the root of the linear confusion arises from the attempt to consider interpretation with respect to opposite poles in a relatively independent manner.
Thus if two drivers move in opposite directions, within their independent frames of reference, each will move forward.
This is linear (one-directional) understanding. However to consider their movement as interdependent - whereby the drivers move, relatively, forward and backward with respect to each other - requires bi-directional appreciation.