Binary Therapies – Finding the Rainbow in the Black and the white

How do “binary therapies” work?

eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is a recently introduced therapy which has shown very good results, but has had a number of criticisms based on our lack of understanding as to exactly how it works. It sits alongside a number of similar therapies, which use various forms of binary triggering, to achieve the therapeutic effect. On top of this, these therapies, which also including Emotion-Focussed Therapy EFT, with it’s on-off “tapping”, also feature a distinct lacking in any verbalised understanding of ones issues, in order for the therapy to work.

Until last week, I also struggled to see how one could work though ones issues, without a reasonably deep understanding of ones psychological motivations and thoughts. That was until, for some unknown reason, I chose to play devil’s advocate, and defend EMDR against claims of “magical thinking”, amongst some of it’s advocates. I’m not sure where it came from, but I had an insight that the unconscious mind is rather like the closed box of the Schrodinger’s cat analogy.

Schrodinger’s Cat

Schrodinger’s Cat is a well known analogy within quantum mechanics. It postulates that if we put a cat in a box with some poison, and close the box, then, in it’s unobserved condition, according to Quantum Theory, then it will be all possible states simultaneously.

However, what is often overlooked, is that in actuality, this means that there are at least 4 different states, for that cat in it’s box. This is explained by Belnap–Dunn four-valued logic.

Belnap–Dunn four-valued logic

Belnap–Dunn four-valued logic is a system that is both paraconsistent (tolerates contradictions without collapsing into triviality) and paracomplete (tolerates truth-value gaps, i.e. absence of truth).

Belnap–Dunn four-valued logic, sometimes called First-Degree Entailment (FDE), was developed independently by Nuel Belnap and J. Michael Dunn in the 1970s. It is built to handle two key limitations of classical two-valued logic:

• Contradictions: In classical logic, if something is both true and false, then anything can be proven (“explosion”). Paraconsistency avoids this.
• Gaps: In classical logic, if something is neither true nor false, reasoning breaks. Paracompleteness allows this.

FDE gives us a truth framework that can represent both inconsistent and incomplete information at the same time.

The Four Values

Instead of just `True (T)` and `False (F)`, Belnap–Dunn logic has four values, usually described as:

1. T (only true)
2. F (only false)
3. B (both true and false) – contradiction
4. N (neither true nor false) – gap

This can be thought of as combining two axes:

• “Is there evidence for truth?”
• “Is there evidence for falsity?”

So:

T = yes evidence for truth, no evidence for falsity
F = no truth evidence, yes falsity evidence
B = both truth and falsity evidence
N = no evidence either way

Another way of understanding this four value binary indicator, is by seeing any binary number, as also implying the absence of it’s opposite. Therefore:

1, is also not 0, and,

0, is also not 1.

The true binary notation, is 01 and 10. So whilst the only binary states that can be seen are 10, and 10, there are also values of 11 (both alive and dead), and 00, neither alive or dead.

Logical Consequence (Entailment)

FDE defines valid inference as:

• An argument is valid if in every model, if all premises are designated, the conclusion is designated.
• The designated values (the ones that count as “truth-like”) are usually T and B.

This way, contradictions (B) don’t trivialize the system, since not every formula is entailed from them, and also Gaps (N) don’t break the system, since reasoning can proceed even without assigning strict T/F to everything.

Applying Belnap-Dunn to Schrodinger’s Cat

If we ask whether Belnap–Dunn four-valued logic (with its four states: true, false, both, neither) can be mapped onto the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment (where the cat is “alive” or “dead,” and quantum mechanics introduces superposition and uncertainty), we find that the key question is:

Can the paraconsistent/paracomplete truth values give us a way to represent the possible epistemic or ontological states of the cat?

Classical View (Two-Valued logic)

Alive = True
Dead = False
Classical bivalence says the cat must be in one of these states, even if we don’t know which.

Schrödinger’s Cat (Quantum Superposition)

quantum mechanics suggests (before observation) that the cat is in a superposition of alive + dead. This doesn’t fit classical logic.

• It’s not just ignorance (we can’t say it’s “definitely one or the other, but we don’t know”).
• It’s a genuine both-at-once state.

Belnap–Dunn Mapping

Here’s how the four values could map to the cat’s box states:

1. T (Alive only) – Cat alive.
2. F (Dead only) – Cat dead.
3. B (Both alive and dead) – Quantum superposition (alive ∧ dead).
4. N (Neither alive nor dead) – Edge case: cat is in some other undefined quantum state, or perhaps this reflects “our total epistemic gap” (we cannot even assign alive/dead as applicable yet).

Interpretation

• If we treat the logic ontologically (describing reality itself), then B models the paradoxical quantum state (cat both alive and dead until measurement).
• If we treat the logic epistemically (describing knowledge), then N models our lack of knowledge, and B might not be needed unless we want to represent genuine contradictions in observation.

Probabilities

Belnap–Dunn doesn’t capture quantum amplitudes (probabilities of alive vs dead). It’s a logical framework, not a full quantum formalism. But it is a good fit for expressing the non-classical truth conditions of Schrödinger’s scenario, and those probabilities are still part of the overall scene that is being set. They become more interesting, when we start applying this quantum thinking into human decision making and problem solving, and see that within each yes/no decision, their is a cascade of options and decisions which “stack-up”, to create the underlying probability of the outcome.

How the four value system affects human thinking

Schrödinger’s cat is at its base a binary system (“alive” vs “dead”), and the four-valued extension doesn’t really show up in the “classical” decision making structure, it is not possible to see a cat that is both, or neither, alive, or dead. Once you measure, or look in the box, you only ever get T (alive) or F (dead). The “both” and “neither” categories are more about our interpretation or epistemic model, not about what we see as a definite outcome.

But when we switch our attention to human decision-making, things change: binary questions very often invite more than two possible stances.

For example, here is a common type of binary decision:

“Do I want rice, or chips?”

Possible stances:

1. Rice (T)
2. Chips (F)
3. Both (B)
4. Neither (N)

This is exactly the Belnap–Dunn pattern. A two-valued framing (“choose rice or chips”) is structurally incomplete for the real human choice-space, whereas four-valued logic models it directly.

Binary logic assumes strict mutual exclusivity and completeness (Law of Excluded Middle + Law of Non-Contradiction), However, human reasoning often violates both:

• We sometimes want both (contradictory preference) – paraconsistency.
• Sometimes we want neither (refusal of the offered binary) – paracompleteness.

Back to Schrödinger

The cat-box is built to dramatize quantum superposition, not to model choice theory. So while Belnap–Dunn can be mapped to it metaphorically, its real traction shows up in cases like human decision-making, inconsistent databases, and systems where both/neither are natural outcomes.

Human decisions may be one long string of binary decisions

If we continue looking at human decision making, we might observe that even complex decisions can be broken down into a long string of binary decisions. An example may be, setting a preference for low fat rice, and a preference for tastier chips. Then needing to take a decision between those preferences, against usually pre-established priorities, which are still influenced by other factors, such as a bias to want to demonstrate to those with us, our ability to make intelligent food choices.

For example:

1. Food choice level 1: rice vs. chips.
2. Food quality level 2: rice – low-fat option; chips – tastier option.
3. Priority comparison: weigh health preference (low-fat) against taste preference (chips).
4. contextual factors: social bias (showing others you’re a “good chooser”).

So instead of one binary choice, we’re looking at a tree of binary sub-decisions, where higher-level preferences are decided by comparing outcomes of lower-level binaries.

Where Belnap–Dunn Fits

Normally, binary decomposition assumes that every decision resolves neatly into T/F at each stage. But in human practice:

• Sometimes both options carry weight (B). Example: “Rice is healthier, but chips taste better — both are valid.”
• Sometimes neither option satisfies (N). Example: “Neither low-fat rice nor oily chips fit my craving.”

So Belnap–Dunn can act as a decision logic overlay: instead of forcing resolution at every binary node, it allows nodes to remain in states of contradiction (B) or incompleteness (N). When we look at how people make decision, we can see that often, a tendency for black/white thinking, will cause other options to be not only missed, but also actively avoided. This is often in itself due to a cognitive bias. and we might suggest that this is the basis of delusional thinking.

Here we might see how, in order to heal an issue using a verbally based therapy, that we would need to challenge that bias, if that individual is to benefit from the therapy. We can also see, that in the unconscious mind, which has no labels for everything it sees, if far less likely to avoid, or omit any of the available options from its decision tree.

Implications for Human Decision modelling

• Priority Weighting: If a preference chain resolves in B, you may need to appeal to external weights (health > taste, or vice versa).
• Contextual Overrides: Social or situational biases can push resolution even when the logic says “B” or “N.”
• Meta-Decisions: Sometimes the actual decision is “about how to decide” (e.g. “I’ll pick whatever the group prefers”), which redefines the logic space entirely.

Example – Decision Run-Through

Binary: Rice (T) vs. Chips (F).
Sub-preferences: Rice – low-fat (health+), Chips – tastier (pleasure+).
Outcome at this stage = B (both have distinct positives).
Social factor enters: “I want to be seen as health-conscious.”
Context resolves B into T (rice chosen).

Here, the Belnap–Dunn value was real (both options simultaneously valid), but the resolution required an external bias to collapse the choice.

This proposes a logic of human choice that:

• Starts as a series of binaries,
• Encounters both/neither states as natural stopping points,
• Resolves contradictions/incompleteness through higher-level priorities or contextual biases.

The “closed-box”, of the open mind

If we return to Schrodinger’s cat, we might suggest that the “box closed” scenario, is in effect, a decision making state that is happening in the unconscious mind of the individual. The decision will not be made, until it is seen in the conscious mind. In this way, we might think of the human brain as having two areas for decision making, one in the conscious, logical space, and the other in the unconscious space.

This means that Schrödinger’s cat is not only a metaphor for physical indeterminacy, but also for human cognitive decision-making. Specifically:

Box closed: The decision state in the unconscious: all possibilities are active, but not yet determined in a conscious, explicit way.

Box opened: the moment of conscious resolution: one option manifests as the actual choice (alive/dead; rice/chips).

Thus, the human brain can be thought of as having two parallel arenas of decision-making:

Unconscious/pre-conscious: where competing factors are still “in superposition” (contradictory, incomplete, unresolved).

Conscious/logical: where the system collapses the state into one reportable, observable choice.

How Belnap–Dunn Fits This Dual-Process

In the unconscious layer, decisions can sit in B (both) or N (neither) states for quite some time:

• Example: “I want rice and I want chips” (B).
• Example: “I don’t really want either” (N).

In the conscious layer, we typically experience decisions as binary (T/F) because we can only act on one choice at a time.

The shift from unconscious to conscious can be thought of as a “collapse” operator on the four-valued logic model, reducing it to classical two-valued outcomes.

The Parallel with Quantum Superposition

• Quantum superposition ≈ unconscious holding of contradictory or incomplete options.
• Measurement ≈ conscious articulation or action, where one outcome actualizes.
• Belnap–Dunn logic ≈ the representational system that can model the richer space of possibilities before collapse.

cognitive Science Resonance

This concept dovetails very well with dual-process theories of mind. These originate in research on reasoning and judgment (Wason, Tversky & Kahneman).  The dual-process theories propose that the mind has two kinds of processes for reasoning, decision-making, and perception:

System 1 (or Type 1)

• Fast, automatic, unconscious.
• Relies on intuition, heuristics, gut feelings.
• Efficient, but prone to biases.

System 2 (or Type 2)

• Slow, deliberate, conscious.
• Logical, analytical, rule-based.
• More accurate, but effortful and limited by attention.

Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow popularised the idea of System 1 vs. System 2.

Other models models include Stanovich & West (dual-process reasoning), Evans (heuristic-analytic theory), and Sloman (two-systems approach).

Key Features of the dual process theory

• Parallelism: System 1 and System 2 often run together, sometimes in conflict.
• Default-interventionist model:
• System 1 generates quick impressions.
• System 2 can override, but only with effort.

Examples:

• Reading a sentence – System 1 (automatic).
• Solving a math problem – System 2 (deliberate).
• Deciding if a stranger is trustworthy – System 1 (intuition).
• Planning a financial budget – System 2 (calculation).

This interpretation of the Schrödinger’s-box analogy is a strong way of illustrating how pre-conscious thought contains contradictory or incomplete states that only appear resolved when they “surface” to conscious reasoning. It also shows that seemingly binary decisions in the human mind are not often binary.

Enter the Rainbow

Belnap–Dunn gives us four values for any proposition:

• T = true (alive)
• F = false (dead)
• B = both true and false (alive + dead)
• N = neither true nor false (undefined)

When Superposition is Considered

In the Schrödinger analogy, before the box is opened, we don’t have to choose one of the four all four can co-exist in the superpositional unconscious.

We can think of them as independent truth indicators:

• Alive? 1/0
• Not-alive? 1/0
• Dead? 1/0
• Not-dead? 1/0

Each indicator can be on or off independently. Which means, in superposition, our binary decision now has 16 possible states.

Sixteen States

We can see that with four binary indicators = (2^4 = 16), we have sixteen possible states. That a binary 1 and zero, are also 01 and 10, and that in superposition, all four indicators apply independently, thus we have a four bit code, in superposition (unconscious thinking time), which gives us those 16 possibilities.

These range from 0000 (nothing, and not anything) to 1111 (everything and nothing at once).

In the box (unconscious mind), all sixteen are live simultaneously, like the full colour spectrum before it refracts into visible bands.  This is our first rainbow of options, not just four, but 16 possible “combinations of being.”

Collapse into Consciousness

When the box is opened (when unconscious material surfaces into the conscious mind), the ego-conscious filter forces a collapse into a single perceivable option. Verbalisation is therefore a collapse operator: it insists, “Tell me if it’s alive or dead.”  That collapse reduces 16 possibilities down to 1 reportable state. Alive, 1001, or dead, 0110, assuming the following labels:

Alive | not alive | dead | not dead.

So we can see, that therapeutic methodologies that ask the client to verbalise and explore their feelings may actually inadvertently collapse an unconscious thought process prematurely, and this may in itself may prove to be less helpful, than a method that works with the unconscious mind. Leaving it to come to its conclusion, in its own time.

Why Non-Verbal Approaches Preserve the Rainbow

• Non-verbal binary switching techniques such as EMDR, EFT, etc. let the “universal-self” keep cycling through the whole 16-state rainbow without collapsing early.
• This maximises the chance of discovering a solution the conscious ego would never imagine (the “unthinkable”).

Example:

• Intention: “I want to be happy.”
• ego says: “Happiness means my partner must change.”
• Universal-self, exploring the rainbow, lights up an unconsidered state: leaving the partner is possible, and leads to happiness.
• ego might never dream that option, but the universal-self can bring it forward.

An explanation of Non-verbal, binary activated therapies

Non-verbal therapeutic techniques like EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing), Emotion-Focussed Therapy (EFT), and similar rhythmic left–right/on–off methods can be understood in terms of this dual-space decision model:

• The client’s initial intention (“I want to heal this issue”) is often vague and unarticulated. It sits in the unconscious as an unresolved state, potentially a B (both) or N (neither) condition.
• The therapy method introduces a binary stimulus (left–right eye movements, tapping, alternating tones).
• Each binary rhythm nudges the unconscious material into a kind of structured processing loop — like stepping through the unresolved space of possibilities one binary toggle at a time.
• The binary nature of the therapy, whether it is left-right focussed, or the on-off, of the tap, or even when both are used together, allow the mind to open and close a rainbow of unexpressed ideas with each tap, allowing the mind to move into it’s own quantum super positional state, where it can see all options for the next binary step of the overall decision..
• This creates opportunities for the unconscious to gradually resolve contradictions or fill gaps, so that the issue can “collapse” into a more coherent conscious representation (insight, relief, reframe).
• given enough time, encouraged through binary rhythms focussing that intent allow for minimal effort and minimal trauma therapies that may well become completely self administered by the client.

Mapping It to the Belnap–Dunn + Schrödinger Analogy

Unconscious state:

trauma/memory/emotion tends to be stored in contradictory or incomplete forms within the human consciousness. Often causing cognitive bias, or fear based avoidance when it is openly discussed or explored. Usually leading to “black/white” thinking, where only a few of the options are allowed to be considered.

In the unconscious mind, those un-named options can be explored without that bias or fear. Therefore, all of the available states, Belnap–Dunn’s full four values (T, F, B, N) are allowed in this imaginative space of the unconscious mind.

Therapeutic binary stimulus:

The eye movement from left to right, or any other therapy that uses binary switching , such as tapping (on/off). Functions like an unspoken scan through all of the available options, allowing the wider, non-verbal self, to view all of those options without the conscious mind needing to concern itself with the detail of that information.

Gradual resolution:

With each binary switch, the unconscious mind is able to explore and prune its contradictory/incomplete “superpositions.” This is like slowly collapsing the cat’s wavefunction, but through multiple micro-decisions.

The lack of verbalisation, allows for a solution that will correct the issue silently, without a need for verbalisation, or the often related pressure to find it which often comes when issues are discussed in detail in psychodynamic therapy.

Conscious surfacing:

At some point during the therapy, the individual will feel that there has been a change, and will come to understand that one stable resolution has been reached. The client verbalises or feels the shift: “Now I see it differently,” “The memory doesn’t hurt as much.”

Why This Helps Explain EMDR/EFT

These therapies don’t work by directly solving the issue with reasoned analysis. Instead, they provide a structured decision scaffold (binary stimulation) that the unconscious can use to process contradictions and gaps.

The verbal mind (System 2) might not fully follow, but the unconscious (System 1) is actively resolving the “both/neither” states until clarity emerges.

So in this model:

• Unconscious = Expansion of options based on four-valued logic being available (supporting contradictions, gaps, unresolved patterns).
• Binary rhythmic stimulus = decision scaffolding, turning a complex decision into a simple step by step set of binary decisions (systematically steps through possibilities).
• Conscious = two-valued collapse (choice/insight manifests, issue feels resolved).

Conscious filters

We should also understand that, even though all options might be available to the unconscious mind, the conscious mind may have it’s own filters which rule out or avoid some of those options. We might call those filters, a cognitive bias, but they may also be due to societal conditioning. We can see this when clients using talking therapies end up in constant “Yes, but no” rejections of potential helping strategies. For example, sometimes they refuse to accept that they can be healed, unless their abuser changes.

Some of those filters may also be “coping thoughts, many of these are often illogical, however, they work in the clients personal context due to the illogical incongruence of their societal interface.

Those and potentially other related complexities seem to indicate that non-verbal therapies may be better fitted to some, if not a majority of clients. But, there is still the danger of clients undoing beneficial work, simply by their own cognitive disbelief.

This means that often, there is a tension between the unconscious desire to process “everything”, versus the conscious desire to avoid triggers, or other incongruences that may cause the individual to experience confusion, or other instabilities that may be felt to be undesirable.

The Two Processing Layers in Tension

Layer 1: The Unconscious mind

• Holds the full spectrum of options (T, F, B, N).
• Can engage with contradictory material and incomplete memories without immediately rejecting them.
• Non-verbal therapies work here, allowing “superposition” states to reorganise.
• Can “think” in abstractions.

Layer 2: The Conscious mind

• Operates largely in two-valued logic (yes/no, true/false).
• Has filters: rationalisations, moral rules, identity commitments, fear of change. Struggles with abstract ideas, and can see these as a threat in themselves.
• This explains the “yes, but no” pattern we sometimes see in talk therapy: The attempt by the practitioner to work on the issue, can often be seen as a threat itself, and the client becomes increasingly adept at “rational avoidance”, where false logic is applied in order to deviate or obscure the therapeutic path.
• therapist offers a possible reframing (T).
• Client immediately finds a reason it “doesn’t fit” (F).
• The actual lived experience remains stuck in B (both) or N (neither), but the conscious mind refuses to admit it.

Why Non-Verbal Therapies May Sometimes Fit Better

Because non-verbalising therapies work beneath this conscious bias, or filtering, they can allow the unconscious to explore contradictions without the verbal rejection loop, giving the client access to a greater set of options, and to understand which option is best.

Eye movements, tapping, body-based or rhythmic approaches don’t present the client with propositions to reject. They simply provide the binary scaffolding that lets the unconscious test states and find coherence.

Why might non-verbal, binary switched therapies not work?

Even after this beneficial unconscious processing, the conscious mind can sabotage the result, sometimes by refusing to allow the idea that the therapy can help them. They may have so much scepticism, that the conscious mind can send signals to the unconscious mind which undo, or refuse to apply the solutions that are being explored. This highlights that this “Yes, but no”, logic can still influence the outcome of non-verbalising therapies.

A client may feel relief after EMDR, but later invalidate it with disbelief:

• “It can’t be this easy.”
• “If I heal, it lets my abuser off the hook.”
• “I don’t deserve to feel better.”

This is the “undoing” effect — the conscious mind reimposes its binary filter and dismisses what the unconscious presented as a resolution.

Possible Implications

• Therapeutic sequencing might matter:
  • Start with non-verbal work to resolve unconscious contradictions.
  • Then gently introduce verbal integration, framing results in ways that bypass the client’s blocking filters.
• The therapist’s role may be less about providing new “propositions” and more about guarding the resolution from being undone.
• cognitive disbelief could be treated as another “N” (gap) or “B” (contradiction) state, which needs its own binary scaffolding to be worked through.

So if we fold this back into the Belnap–Dunn frame:

• The unconscious mind can hold T, F, B, N and move among them, working though all possible combinations, not only those that “make sense”.
• The conscious mind prefers only T or F, and often uses filtering to reject “B” or “N.” It can insist on only “sensible”, or “believable” solutions can be allowed.
• Non-verbal therapies act as a translator, moving unconscious work into conscious awareness with less risk of immediate rejection.
• The challenge is ensuring the final collapse into T (healed state) isn’t overridden by the conscious mind reasserting its filters.

Is there a need for a therapist?

If everyone of us, focussed on an intent, to be the best we can be. Then visualised, that our binary footprints, from walking, would be those baby steps of unconscious therapy, would everyone simply heal?

• Suppose each person chose a “new orientation” — “to be the best they can be.”
• Each person then “visualised their journey” as a sequence of small, binary steps (yes/no choices, footprints marking progress).
• They carried this forward with “minimal doubt” (a strong belief that success is possible).

The question is really this: “Is it possible for all of us, collectively, to believe in ourselves enough to actually realise this vision?”

The Individual Layer

On the personal level:

• “Binary foot printing” (baby steps) makes big goals tractable. Each step is only a yes/no choice: do I take this step or not?
• “Visualization” creates a mental map, reducing uncertainty about where to step next.
• “Minimal doubt” functions like a stabiliser: if the unconscious accepts the direction, then conscious rejection filters are less likely to sabotage progress.

This is structurally sound; it mirrors habit-formation, CBT micro-steps, and even Buddhist “right action” sequences.

The Collective Layer

When extended to “everyone”, in theory, if each person consistently moved toward their “best self” in baby steps, society would gradually reorganize around mutual growth and fewer self-sabotaging patterns.

However, there may be some issues that will need to be addressed:

Do not define what this best self looks like

It is important to not pre-define, what this “best-self” is. That would place a limitation of all possibilities, and avoiding it means we do not fall into the trap of thinking we know better than our future self, that healed self that no longer attracted to fast cars, might have something to say, when you visualised your best self as driving a Jaguar.

Beware adverse societal influences

Social systems often reward some “footprints” and punish others, which can skew one’s individual trajectory. If some of the unconscious minds abstract world on impossible possibilities leaks into the conscious mind, then that, in itself can cause unwanted self comparisons that may adversely impact ones willingness to hold that line of that internal self-healing intent.

Doubt can be significant and multidimensional

It is natural to question, but it is also possible to ask the wrong questions. One significant obstacle to acceptance, if when we pre-judge the outcome, without really understanding what it might look-like. This is why it is important to not define exactly what that “best self” might look like.

Another cause of doubt, is when we lack a rational explanation as to how the therapy works. This has been the case for many of the non-verbal binary mode therapies, including EMDR. This paper hopes to help explain the mechanisms used in such therapies, and may itself help to remove this source uncertainty.

However, the largest source of doubt, often comes from learnt experience. Here, for many people, society has undermined their self-confidence, to the extent that they cannot believe that they are able to help themselves. In addition, they have learnt to not trust the future. In other words, many clients may have a good therapeutic session, but afterwards, may well self-sabotage that good work, by clinging to a belief in past mistakes repeating themselves, and by worrying about negative potential future outcomes.

The importance of “living in the-now moment”

Post-session doubt often springs from learned history (“this never lasts”) and catastrophic futures (“it’ll go wrong again”), which can undo gains made in therapy.

After effective non-verbal therapy, many people reflexively revert to “past-anchored certainty” (“I always mess this up”) or “future-anchored fear” (“it’ll fall apart”). These time-biases re-activate the conscious filters that created the stuck loop, shrinking the option-space and eroding confidence.

Why “the-now” matters:

Prevents premature collapse of confidence. Staying present keeps the conscious, verbal mind from forcing a quick, old narrative (past/future) onto material the universal-self is still reorganizing.

Maximizes integration time. Non-verbal, bilateral “binary switching” hands the problem to the universal-self; present-moment attention extends that hand-off, letting deeper processes keep working between sessions.

Reduces doubt fuel. rumination (past) and worry (future) are cognitive engines of doubt; present-moment attention deprives them of runway.

Protects the “rainbow”. In our model, the unconscious holds a 16-state “rainbow” of possibilities. living, in “the-now” keeps that full set available until a stable resolution surfaces, instead of collapsing early into the old two-valued story.

How the “now” supports binary therapies (mechanism):

Attention anchoring: Lower arousal: Breath/body focus down-regulates threat, so System 2 doesn’t rush to rescue with old narratives.

Non-verbal dominance preserved: Sensation based explanations keeps processing in the four-valued/universal-self space.

Micro-choices stay binary and tractable: In the present, each step is a simple yes/no footprint, not a debate with your history or imagined future.

Confidence accrues from evidence, not prediction: You experience “this step worked now,” which is harder to dispute than “it will work forever.”

“Living in the now” keeps the conscious mind from collapsing the 16-state rainbow on unconscious possibilities into an old two-state story, giving the universal-self maximum time and stability to complete the reorganization begun by non-verbal, binary-triggered work.

What Belnap–Dunn Adds Here

If we use the four-valued lens:

Some people live mostly in “T” (I can, I will).
Others live in “F” (I can’t, I won’t).
Many of us are in “B” (I both want and don’t want to change).
Some feel stuck in “N” (I don’t even know what “best self” means).

So for “all of us” to move, there would need to be a “global scaffolding process” (like EMDR’s binary rhythm, but scaled up) that helps people resolve their “B and N states” into forward steps.

The universal-self

I’d like to introduce the concept of the universal-self. This can be thought of as the totality of the self, and it includes all unknown, or yet to be discovered aspects of the self. It includes many processes that we just do not need to know about. And can also be thought of as including, in Jungian terms, the collective consciousness and the collective unconscious.

It is useful to use this term, as, the implication is, that these non-verbal binary intentional therapies we have been discussing, allow us to pass the problem to this universal self, and that by using binary switching, we maximise the amount of time that this universal self can review and step the issue forward. Hence, EMDR can see major impacts on the individual in a very low number of therapeutic sessions.

Defining the Universal-Self

The “universal-self” = the “totality of self”, not limited to that which is understood by one’s conscious ego. It contains:

• All known and unknown aspects of the individual.
• All that is yet to be discovered in personal development.
• And, in a Jungian sense, even the “collective unconscious” — the archetypal and shared structures of mind.
• In this sense, the universal-self is both “individual and transpersonal”.

Role in Non-Verbal Binary Therapies

In talk therapies, the “ego-conscious self” dominates: it verbalises, filters, rationalises, resists.

However, In binary non-verbal therapies (EMDR, tapping, bilateral stimulations):

• “Verbalisation is minimised”.
• The binary rhythm “opens a stable channel” through which unresolved material can be passed “directly to the universal-self”.
• The universal-self, unlike the ego-conscious self, is not limited by binary categories or conscious filters. It can:
  • Hold contradictions.
  • Explore unthinkable options.
  • Draw upon wider archetypal resources.

Why This Accelerates Healing

Because the “problem is given to the universal-self”, which has a “much larger potential processing capacity” than the conscious ego, resolution can emerge rapidly.

The “binary scaffold” (left/right, on/off) maximises the “time-in-processing” for the universal-self. Each “switch” extends the opportunity for the deeper system to review and test pathways.

This explains why EMDR often produces “major impacts in just a few sessions”:

• The ego is not wrestling the problem alone.
• The universal-self is brought into active play, with minimal interference.

confusion as insight?

In the Schrodinger’s cat example, we use the Belnap-Dunn four value model to understand that this gives sixteen different states, all of which happen “instantaneously” until the person chooses to open the box, and that wave function collapses into one of those two binary conditions, dead or alive.

This can now also be seen to be happening in the mind of the individual: Their universal self can see all sixteen states for that binary question. But their conscious mind only wishes to see those states that “make sense”. However, sometimes those unconscious thoughts can be seen by one’s conscious mind, such as when in verbal, talking therapeutic practice. This is often seen as confused thinking.

However, we can now see that confusion at this level, simply means there are many options on the table, and that means there is an increased likelihood of the “right” option being chosen. The less confused the individual, the less options are being seen, and we may see that rationality is mis-applied when one is expressing the contents of the unconscious mind.

Again, these non-verbal methods, avoid that confusion from being verbalised, and this may protect the individual from undermining their self-confidence via misinterpretation of that confusion.

The Role of Non-Verbal Therapies

• Verbal therapies force the client to collapse into a decision early — to pick words, defend positions, explain contradictions.
• Non-verbal therapies bypass this demand.
• The unconscious gets to hold the rainbow of options without being pressured into a “false clarity.”
• This preserves self-confidence, because the client doesn’t experience themselves as “failing to make sense.” Instead, the unconscious quietly works until resolution surfaces.

reframing confusion and insight

When verbal therapies collapse too early, confusion arises — the ego tries to solve what it cannot hold. Non-verbal therapies, by contrast, “trust the universal-self” to carry the unresolved material until it can surface a resolution. Insights or shifts may then experienced not as “constructed” by the ego, but as “delivered from a larger totality of self”.

The Deeper Implication

If the universal-self includes even the “collective layer”, then healing may not only resolve personal trauma. It may also tap into broader archetypal rebalancing, meaning that work done by one individual potentially resonates across shared patterns of mind.

Furthermore, once we realise that the superpositional unconscious mindscape adds these sixteen states to that binary change of polarity. then we understand that this 16-coloured rainbow is actually and infinity of options, if we give ourselves the time to run through them.

The Rainbow becomes infinity

We can see that this, initial transition from one binary state to another, causes a “level 1” rainbow, those 16 states hidden in a single binary transition. However, each of those states, in superposition, is switching and so, there is a level 2 rainbow of decisions available.

Deeper diving into the unconscious possibilities in this much expanded range of options, might reveal an option of “chips with cheese”. By giving the universal self enough time, it can check a huge range of options, which fine-slice the problem into finer and finer variations, until “perfect” may well be found, or we go down another level. And does this not mean, that between those two states, the light and the dark, there may be hidden an entire universe?

The Level 1 Rainbow (16 states)

At the simplest scale, a binary (yes/no, light/dark, alive/dead) hides a “superposed set of 16 possibilities”. This is the “rainbow” we’ve been describing — the unconscious can hold all these available states “simultaneously”, even when the conscious ego sees only a forced binary.

The Level 2 Rainbow (superposition within superposition)

Each of those 16 states is “not static” — it is itself in motion, “switching” beneath the surface.
That means each “state” is actually a “gateway into another rainbow of finer distinctions”.

For example: The binary is rice vs chips decision. Level 1 rainbow offers: rice, chips, both, neither, all permutations.

At Level 2, the unconscious can explore “variations within those categories”:

Rice – low-fat, fried, spicy, steamed.
Chips – salty, cheesy, crispy, oven-baked.
Both – rice with chips, chips on rice, alternating bites.
Neither – salad, soup, fasting.

“Chips with cheese” may well be the sort of novel synthesis that emerges when you dive deeper into the unconscious rainbow. And that an insistence on an immediate answer, will most likely come up with a confused and unworkable answer.

Recursive Universes of Choice

This process is “recursive”: each decision point, once opened, hides another spectrum. If Level 1 is 16, Level 2 becomes 16 × 16 = 256 and Level 3 would be 4096. Very quickly, we approach an “astronomically large search space”, effectively a universe of possibilities hidden between a single yes and no decision.

Why This Matters for the Universal-Self

The ego-self cannot consciously scan such a massive branching tree — it collapses into “yes/no.” The ego is almost always going to fail to solve problems organically, from within, and will become convinced that the solution must come from an external source. But on the other hand, the “universal-self” can explore these layers because it is not bound by verbalisation or linear logic. Given enough time, and acceptance of those solutions, then the universal self should ultimately, an organismic move towards that ultimate goal. The universal self is able to avail itself of all possible solutions, not only those the ego self will allow. Placing that healing intention into our daily binary actions and thoughts means we maximise the time released to the universal self, to think.

Given “enough time, rhythm, and non-verbal space”, the universal-self can fine-slice until it discovers the most fitting solution (“perfect for now”, baby step), or the direction to go deeper into another layer of rainbow possibilities.

The Hidden Universe Between Light and Dark

Between any two poles (light/dark, yes/no), there is a “hidden multiverse of states”, layered like rainbows within rainbows. Each layer refines the problem further, bringing subtler and subtler options into awareness. What looks like a stark binary to the conscious mind is, to the universal-self, a “whole cosmos of variation”.

Implication

This model suggests that “non-verbal, binary-scaffolded therapies” don’t just resolve problems — they may also be mechanisms for giving the universal-self the time and structure it needs to explore this vast hidden space. That’s why outcomes can feel surprising, creative, or even miraculous: they come from dimensions of the problem the ego never knew existed.