Double helix model for this research.

So if we take the notion that the two modes of reality that I'm working with are exist as a binary opposition (I'm not sure about this) and not as spectrum of experiences then we might accept the model of the double helix such as that of DNA as a means of thinking about this scenario. The two strands "fiction and reality" operate around each other sharing common threads of information combine and yet share different traits. A DNA double helix is made up of two RNA helices (I had to look that plural up)which each hold a string of nucleotides along their lengths. There are 4 different nucleotides. Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine (pleased with myself that I can remember these) that sit in some order along the length of the RNA, however an adenine molecule doesn't bond with another adenine molecule, it bonds with a Thymine molecule to we get a bonding pair of A-T. Equally Guanine bonds with Cytosine (G-C)(knew this but had to look it up to check). If we go back to the relationship between fiction and reality we have this duality that is connected at specific points but each share a different trait that are bonded together to create this over all experience. (fictionality or whatever). We might denote a new bonding pair of (F-R)


If we continue on with this metaphor then when DNA replicates. AN enzyme (DNA polymerase) is introduced (comes along, wanders past) which "unzips" this molecule. (F-R) becomes F R - we become aware of the fiction strand and reality strand being independent of one another - new F and R molecules float in from the surrounding environment float in and fill these gaps. Creating 2 new double helices of F-R.

So the question is am I acting as an enzyme to unzip reality and fiction or am I conversely bringing reality and fiction together to form one single unit that provides a stable function? (RNA is unstable or active DNA is stable inactive). Paradoxically I am both making reality and fiction active (I am making people aware of the play of these two currents) whilst also joining the two together. Does this mean this isn't a good model? Clearly there's two perspectives to take into account here. The role of the onlooker (who is unaware of the "truth" within the text) and the author (who is aware of a "truth" within the text (what I've made up and what I haven't) though by no means a definitive truth because what I've made up has still a strong basis within my personal existence and reality and therefore has nucleotides of truth within the fiction).


So we need to update our model. In the DNA double helix A and G are not component factors of only one of the DNA polymers - a typical strand of DNA might have sequence such as this:

A-T
C-G
G-C
T-A
T-A
A-T

you get the picture. Basically all the nucleotides contribute on to both polymer strands (sides) of the double helix. Therefore if we are to carry this over onto our fiction and reality polymer - instead of having something that looks like this:

F-R
F-R
F-R

we get something that looks more like this:

F-R
F-R
R-F
R-F
F-R
R-F

we might denote one strand as "fiction" and one as "reality" but actually both contain elements of both. As a human DNA polymerase molecule I am opening up these bonds and allowing the corresponding F and R molecules to occupy the empty bonds. I am inserting fiction into reality and inserting reality into fiction. Of course, if you happen to be involved in this reality then you are being actively combined with a fictional state, making you linked with a real / fictional action and therefore exposing you to the opportunity to shift states. To shift from a real state into a fictional one. Is your "reality" contained withing the fictional polymer of this experience or, conversely, is it contained withing the real. Other questions might be - what has happened to the other double helix that has been created? Where is that?