I commented this on a similar idea and thought I would post it by iteslf.  I've been noticing similar ideas... 

This is in response to someone who was trying to argue for objective truth by saying that a circle cannot be a square:

My response was that nothing is a circle or a square. Perfect circles and squares don't exist in nature, everything is somewhere in between. I then realized that any description of anything follows this same line of thought. Reality is an infinitely incoherent mess. We create dualist extremes that do not exist as relative points between which we can define reality.

Take a simple fork for example. How do we describe it? It is shiny - a measure of how much light it reflects. There is no substance known that reflects or absorbs 100% light, yet we use those extremes as reference points to define values in between. What are it's physical dimensions? Nothing in nature has zero or infinite length, but we need those reference points to define values in between. I can go on...

I guess the point is that we create opposites so that we can define reality between them. It is by our own definition only that there is truth or falsehood. Reality lies somewhere in between.

Hope that makes sense to somebody