This is really a matter of “what is beyond?”
Then getting into the additional muck of what is beyond beyond?
So let’s say there’s a tree.
What is beyond that tree? If nothing, then nothing exists besides the tree (lack of tree), and there is no beyond, there is no possible negation, from which to discern tree from not tree, such as a sidewalk, which is not tree.
So there is both a tree and not a tree, not tree, is “beyond”
You always need a beyond to see something, and a beyond is always -something
So what is beyond beyond?
How can we see beyond, which we know is there, without something beyond that?
You have a couple options.
You see the beyond by virtue of the non beyond: I.e the tree, or, and this is correct, you see the beyond by virtue of the tree, the non tree beyond, and a third variable which is beyond both of them…
Think of it this way…
We see the tree, we see the stars, and beyond those stars, there is another beyond that allows us to see the first beyond.
Not only does this imply a and not a, it implies another not a that forces the first not a to be a middle.