When I refer to the yin-yang structure of the world my reference is not ontological, it's epistemological. As Fresco noted, most thinking is with reference to the poles of a dualistic perspective. Permanence and impermanence, truth and falsity, reality and illusion, etc.etc. are not descriptive of experience itself (meditate and you'll eventually realize that); but we feel that they are good to think with.
Anything we talk about is our perception of things. Ontology is a fool’s errand, as we have no way of understanding the essence of things as they are. And that’s in this epistemological sense too that I said that a mix of permanence AND impermanence is the best way to describe the world. There’s no good reason to focus on only one of these two polar opposites, as they are part of the same dimension, or concept if you prefer.
The real reason we keep disagreeing is that you (and Fresco and igm - I'll indulge in a broadside attack here) seem to think that you have advanced so far ahead of others, while in fact you have just verbalized more or less the same things in a different, e.g. buddhist, language. It’s a question of attitude, of lack of intellectual modesty and honesty. For instance, calling others “naïve realists” doesn’t help your cause, because you then fail to realize the naiveté of your own positions.
Notice how easily I pointed out that permanence and impermanence are part of the same dimension? Like people who think of the world in black and white, you thought of reality as either static or in constant flux… not realizing that change can be predictable, can hide underlying permanence, can slow to a halt; not thinking that permanence and static are two different concepts, not thinking that permanence and impermanence are simply the two extremes of the same scale... Your focus on impermanence alone was simply naïve; you were not looking at the big picture.
And there is nothing naïve about believing that there is a real reality independent of observation. Are you naive wen you search your keys and say things like: "I know I had them when I came in, and now can't find them"? And guess what, most of the time you find them somewhere. They had not in actual fact disappeared while you were not observing them...
There’s nothing particularly novel and thought-provoking either about language being both a medium for exchange and a form of mental prison. Fresco has used the phrase "modern philosopher" to describe stuff put forward by Ferdinand de Saussure at the end of the 19th century, for heavens' sake. Poets have been cursing words about the impossibility to express the ineffable since there are poets… Whoever comes here and uses language to pontificate others about the limitations of language is either a fool or a charlatan. If words are useful to understand the world, then they are useful for everybody, and if they are not, then why are you talking???