Sometimes the third option is a shade of grey for those who tend see in black and white. Resolving a dispute, for example, doesn't mean that either party has to accept full responsibility. Progress can be made when each accepts that part for which they are responsible.

I often get asked, "Is my child asthmatic or not." When the asthma is mild, I explain that there is a spectrum to the disease such that mild asthmatics only get slightly wheezy under more extreme circumstances.

Sometimes black and white thinking can simplify situations, but there is also therein a risk of losing perspective.

Yes and no-this or that-one or zero. On the basis of this elementary two-term discrimination, all human knowledge is built up. The demonstration of this is the computer memory which stores all its knowledge in the form of binary information. It contains ones and zeros, that’s all.

Because we’re unaccustomed to it, we don’t usually see that there’s a third possible logical term equal to yes and no which is capable of expanding our understanding in an unrecognized direction. We don’t even have a term for it, so I’ll have to use the Japanese mu.

Mu means “no thing.” Like “Quality” it points outside the process of dualistic discrimination. Mu simply says, “No class; not one, not zero, not yes, not no.” It states that the context of the question is such that a yes or no answer is in error and should not be given. “Unask the question” is what it says.

Mu becomes appropriate when the context of the question becomes too small for the truth of the answer. When the Zen monk Joshu was asked whether a dog had a Buddha nature he said “Mu,” meaning that if he answered either way he was answering incorrectly. The Buddha nature cannot be captured by yes or no questions.

The dualistic mind tends to think of mu occurrences in nature as a kind of contextual cheating, or irrelevance, but mu is found throughout all scientific investigation, and nature doesn’t cheat, and nature’s answers are never irrelevant. It’s a great mistake, a kind of dishonesty, to sweep nature’s mu answers under the carpet. Recognition and valuatian of these answers would do a lot to bring logical theory closer to experimental practice. Every laboratory scientist knows that very often his experimental results provide mu answers to the yes-no questions the experiments were designed for. In these cases he considers the experiment poorly designed, chides himself for stupidity and at best considers the “wasted” experiment which has provided the mu answer to be a kind of wheel-spinning which might help prevent mistakes in the design of future yes-no experiments.

- Robert Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

A friend of mine uses an invented word 'Po' to explain these third options. He is an event organiser and when ever he is planning, he plans for 'Po' as well. In his mind, if he recognises there is a possibility of something else happening beyond what he HAD planned for, then, at the very least, he'll be ready to accept and deal with it accordingly.

Apart from 'yes' and 'no', I often resolve discussions with a resounding 'Idunno'.

Interesting. And an interesting article, BG. Hmmm...follows along the lines of the value and useful-ness of the "gray area" that is so disparged these days.

Fascinating. I always knew a lot of you "guys" were philosophers at heart. Makes me think we should start a "dead philosophers society" or something.

I think I'm hearing that the answer to a question may often be "wrong question" or "does not compute" or "not in the same universe" (as in what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?).

The third option presents such possibilities. Unfortunately, not too many people uses it, or look for it.

Great article!

Thanks to all comments. In the Third Dimension of course!