ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN VARIOUS LIVING SYSTEMS, including the system of knowledge, often do not merely result in a dichotomy. Perpetual interactions between these systems that make life possible have developed a dialogue so that the process of negotiation becomes a necessity. There are times when such things lead us to a situation of in-between, similar to how a doorstep threshold adjoins one room with another, an indefinite zone that leaves the door open to opportunities for possible transformation.
THE DIALECTICS OF SYSTEMS AND DISCOURSES do not stop within dichotomous divisions (e.g. “central vs. peripheral”), because everything that is lying — or mediating — between the two different types of zone, presumably, invites speculation about knowledge, noetic, or other mental activities that have not been — or even they seem almost impossible to be — formulated through frameworks that so far relied on the rationality and logic typical of modern knowledge. This kind of criticism shifts our focus to things that are rarely, not yet, or may not be seen. These things seem to be in the “intermediate” area or some kind of “crossing zone” —like a doorway that intersects two spaces. In other words: threshold zone. Things that in this context we call “ambangan” (“threshold-ness”).