Frustration with the meaning of "Contrast"

In his introduction to Part II, Ulmer has already told us what spot in the CATTt Julien will play for us as we continue the project: the Contrast. As Ulmer constantly reminds us, we are not "against" the contrast, but the contrast still shows us what we are not doing. In Heuretics, Ulmer's contrast is Descartes, who is the conceptual personae that embodies a certain logic/metaphysics that Ulmer uses as what he is not doing. He is not doing mind/body split, he is not doing the correspondence theory of truth, he is not doing the scientific method, etc. etc.

Ulmer says in the introduction to Part II that Julien presents us with a literate metaphysics, regardless of whether we think in terms of Western or Eastern. However, given Ulmer's own propensity to draw heavily on Eastern sources in Internet Invention as relays, there are moments in the text where Julien seems to be describing (as closely as possible) the kind of logic/metaphysics Ulmer wants us to invent, a process that he seems to have already started in his earlier work. When Ulmer says we need an image metaphysics, does this mean that the metaphysics must be created in the form of image rather than commentary/theory? That is, is it possible to describe the image metaphysics in alphabetic writing?

Furthermore, Julien himself sometimes seems to contradict previous claims about the nature of Chinese logic. In the landscape chapter, he describes the shi as a taking in of the totality, all at once, at a glance. To me, this seems very "panoramic," but Julien insists that Western logic is panoramic. He writes:

Chinese reasoning, in contrast, seems to weave along horizontally, from one case to the next, via bridges and bifurcations, each case eventually leading to the next and merging into it. In contrast to Western logic which is panoramic, Chinese logic is like that of a possible journey in stages that are linked together. The field of thought is not defined and contained a priori; it just unfolds progressively. (124)

Ok, so we can already detect slightly different rhetoric here than Ulmer. We get the word "weave," which is more like a text than a felt, so we might see oureslves as not doing text. Furthermore, there seems to be some kind of linearity implied (unfolding progressively). The image metaphysics we are developing does not unfold progressively, which is still a literate temporality.