Can uniformity and contrast both be true?

Any two things are simultaneously 'similar' and 'different'.
Trivially...they are 'similar' because they are objects of the same comparison, and are 'different' because there are two of them.

Unless you are a 'naive realist', thinghood can be thought to be a function of human observation such that 'reality' is prone to segmentation due to acquired language and selective perception. Some philosophers go on to say that 'observation' always involves a verbal report, even if that report is to oneself.

How I understand reality is that it is a sequence of progression: the issue however with this understanding is the presumed divide between the ability of myself as an observer of the sequence and the ability of the sequence encompassing myself.

Based on deductive logic, I'd posit that presence (the universe) is the error of uniformity and contrast being synonymous.

Yes, it's called the resolution of opposites and is the gist of all religion.

How is it the basis of all religion?

Your questions are absurd.

Why is the question absurd? There's evidence for contrast and uniformity, yet logically the two should mean the inability of one another.

Sorry for the delay of my response; I don't have a computer and must visit the library once a week to use theirs.

Thought breaks everything into opposites; everything that can be thought of has an opposite. Identifying with one side of an interdependent opposite creates ego that attempts to destroy its opposite. When one can see this for a moment--not just think it--that everything has an interdependent opposite, then ego drops away, and that is religious experience.

For instance, you could say that god is the opposite of the devil, but the synthesis of these god/devil is religious experience. You can think of god or the devil, but you can't think of religious experience.

A sioux religious man, Black Elk saw this. He said, "Birds make their nests in circles for theirs is the same religion as ours." The circle is the resolution of opposites and represents the eternal, that which is outside the field of time.

Thank you. I acknowledge the points about religion; transcendence is meant to be about eradicating the opposite, but in reality I'm not sure even experience in any way can be devoid of opposition.

The uniformity of opposition, and the opposition of uniformity. This is what truth seems to be. Reflection.

Anything can be replicated and opposed. Why? If either is good or bad, why should either apply to anything? Or do they?

It's the conundrum of replication and identity. The latter opposes the former, but without the latter there is no point in the former.

Transcendence is not about eradicating the opposite; it is about the unity and the interdependence of opposites. The eternal is outside the field of thought and time; that is transcendence and is religious experience.

What are the opposites that are interdependent?

Every thought has an opposite that is interdependent. When one sees this then you see eternal, that which is outside the field of time and thought.
Unfortunately, this concept has been anathema to all organized religion, and atheism. It is too difficult and too simple to grasp by the intellect. Religious fundamentalists and atheists have the same vocabulary, which insulates them both from religious experience, which becomes taboo. Alan Watts wrote a book called, "The Book: On the Taboo Against knowing Who You Are."

This is a poor version of Hegel.

As the Buddhists say, "The difference is the identity." That's about as succinct as you can get.

Can one exist without the other?

Uniformity comes with relating patterned differences. Not only these two don't oppose themselves but they are required for any perceptual experiencing.

What are some examples of patterned differences?

I don't know what is the difficulty ? Maybe the language ?
Patterns distinct from each other...how do you expect to perceive anything without distinction ??? The uniformity starts with the relation between distinct things not with blank absence of variety.

A better way to frame it is to point out the confusion between low information density areas, absence, with uniformity.
In fact uniformity comes with pattern recognition provided there is a contrasting background. That is to mean absence of information doesn't provide any feedback so that you can qualify uniformity in absolute terms without high information density areas for background contrast.

Stripes and plaids. Don't wear both.