I present not just a new 'idea', but rather, an actuality - a frame of reference new to the human race, and now ready for us humans to use.

I consider it a notational language - or at least, as including a notational language - of the "Let's Keep Track of What We Say" type. Regard it not merely as different in detail from other notations, but as structured according to previously unheard-of principles.

To flesh out this frame of reference, I present some details concerning how it developed - how I happened to make some of the discriminations or distinctions (non-identities) on which its structure crucially depends. Then I present some of its implications, including that:

1. It discloses a fundamental theoretical error encoded in the grammar common to western Indo-European (WIE) discursive and notational languages - specifically, encoded in the way we distinguish between 'noun' and 'verb'. In my analysis, every 'noun' comes to look like a concealed 'is of identity' proposition, which violates the requirement that we distinguish between Name and Thing Named (Frege) or between Map and Territory (Korzybski). To express this violation in words, calling the be-whiskered furry-faced organism by the noun "cat" amounts to asserting "cat(name) identical with cat(thing)".

2. The act of unconcealing this hidden assumption, followed by the act of rejecting and replacing it with the Postulate of Non-identity, brings about the collapse of the WIE grammar, and with it, the collapse of the linguistic specializations based on it - the WIE logics, mathematics, sciences, philosophies, jurisprudences, religions, etc.

3. Before I unconcealed this hidden assumption, I had found that I could not write a non-WIE notation - I didn't know HOW (mainly because I kept using two KINDS of terms, analogous to 'nouns' and 'verbs'). After I unconcealed this hidden assumption, I COULD AND DID write a non-WIE notational language, with no 'nouns' or 'verbs' (or any other WIE "parts of speech") in it.