...Instead try and realize the truth, there is no spoon.

Nonexclusion takes us neatly into and out of a series of layering equations where subtle yet deeply varied permutations create complex, cohesive, and seemingly seamless wholes. The intention of the function of probability is a key by which a representation quantum phenomenon is manifest. A somewhat more obtuse example of nonexclusion can be seen in the example of Uri Geller and his claim of psychic ability. Geller, who caught the attention of late-night television audiences in the mid-seventies and became a somewhat infamous television personality, demonstrated a range of paranormal abilities directly from the “will power and the strength of his mind.” Although there is much controversy surrounding Geller’s claims, critics have never been able to fully disprove his abilities. “Bending spoons” demonstrating his power of telekinesis became the trademark of Geller’s psychic Showmanship. Illusionist and magicians offering alternative explanations have made similar demonstrations proving that similar actions cam be caused from slight of hand. Geller, however, claims his actions are proof of an authentic ability. From the perspective of the general public, there is only the decision of which camp to align with, the believers, the skeptics or the undecided. Although there were attempts of scientific analysis at the Stanford Research Institute and the University of London, Geller’s abilities have never been verified by science in the eyes of his critics.

While nonexclusion does not offer verifiable proof of such claims, it does give Geller the benefit of the doubt in that it cannot exclude Geller’s accounting of these events as being verifiable. But doing so, especially through science, skirts a line between observational fact and what is seen at as subjective reasoning. To underscore this point further we can look at the Geller effect from several perspectives with a few exaggerations and supposed assumptions.

Any viewer witnessing such a display of the minds uncharted ability becomes an active participant in the phenomena. While skeptics actively separate themselves from the validity of Geller’s experience, those who are less inclined to skepticism, actively take part in the minds ‘bending’ of the spoon. Unlike Geller who we assume knows his actions are either real or fraudulent, the non-skeptic is left with a dark paradox. Believing one’s eyes defies the minds normal ration and reasoning process, while accepting the break down of this reasoning calls into question the very ability to define or verify what the eyes see. For a non-skeptic there is no way out of this logical-illogic feedback-loop. One can imagine a similar circumstance where two separate observers both witnessing Geller’s spoon bending disagree on what is actually seen. It is this scenario that precisely outlines principles of nonexclusion. In the largest context, such disagreements of an observational reality would both undermine and oppose the unity scientific thought. In a lesser sense, discrepancies between perspectives or vantage points go completely unnoticed. Nonexclusion reconciles these discrepancies not simply by applying the effects or the probability of all possibilities, but by separating or excluding the nature of experience from that of perception. What is perceived is a sub-set within the totality of experience. It is reasonable then to assume that what is experienced is more than what is perceived.

Perception both reveals and conceals principles of nonexclusion. Nonexclusion implies that all things beings equal are equally relevant and cannot be excluded. Nonexclusion does not exclude exclusion, anymore than noncontradiction excludes contradiction (if there were one thing that was and was not in the same respect and at the same time, then according to principles of noncontrodiction such a thing would also exist in order for noncontradiction to avoid contradicting itself). Unless we are the “Geller” such experiences will always lie outside of perception, and even then such psychic experience may not be readily perceivable.