I picked up on this definition of the harmony of trinity while reading "Conversations with God" recently, and its now coming up in more and more situations.
The basic concept is quite simple, that a 'object' does not have to be either one thing or another, which as humans, we tend to categorise.
The existence of a third dimension for those objects that are neither one thing NOR the othert seems fundamentally obvious, but there's a whole philosophy around our techniques of perception.
This explains why we have "yes" "no" and "maybe" or "yes" "no" and "don't know" I suppose.

In the excellent essay I'm reading at the moment on Duchamp (by Caroline Cros, part of the Critical Lives series, there's an extract from a letter MD wrote in 1954 to one of his associates

"For me, there is something other than yes, no and indifferent – the abscence of any definitions of this sort"

A reference to the fourth dimension which he sought to explore in most of his extraordinary work.
Consider this:

"In the dimension of Time, the same object is not the same after even a 1 second interval."

We would argue that a thing is exactly the same of course, because we are judging its physical characteristics. If nothing has actually 'happened' to that object that we can perceive – if it has not 'changed' in any way – then we consider it absurd to suggest that it is somehow not 'the same'.
But time has 'happened' to it, and to us. The dimensional difference between two identical objects is defined as 'infra-thin'.

I can relate to Duchamp's philosophy and art in so many ways. It's quite uncanny that he seems to represent so much that I feel myself and yet I haven't really discovered much of his work until recently. It explains why I like Rauschenburg's work, and the music of Jon Foxx too, in many ways.
Nude Descending A Staircase has always been one of my favourite 'famous paintings' but now that I understand the idea behind it, it just makes more sense than ever.
The simple idea of not exhibiting original works of art but instead photographs of them is complete genius. And reproducing each one very slightly differently with some retouching - even the iconic "moustache on the Mona Lisa" comes from Duchamp.
And the idea of installing familiar objects in unfamiliar surroundings. The famous Hat Stand being on the floor rather than a wall (simply because he kept falling over it and not getting round to moving it, therefrom deducing that it was MEANT to be there) or hanging a urinal at ground level, or suspending a garden rake from the ceiling.
Simply by placing a familiar object in an unfamilar context it becomes art, deliberately to induce a feeling of confusion and discomfort among the audience.

I'm going to introduce the wonderful phrase "Duplicating Works Instead of repeating Himself" that Cros uses to describe Boitê-en-valise into threada about Foxx as it is one of many Duchamp-esque notions that apply equally well to John's music and approach to art of any kind.
I too wholeheartedly subscribe to the notion that "copyright is for losers" expressed so eloquently by Banksy recently. Nothing is original - all ideas come from recycling and 'repurposing' (thanks John!) things that other people have done and presenting them in a different way.

Wasn't it Morrissey who famously quipped "apology is the death of intimacy"?
Well similarly, "copyright is the death of creativity".