Paradoxical Intrigue

---

“Since Aristotle, the assumption that consistency is a requirement for truth, validity, meaning, and rationality, has gone largely unchallenged. Modern investigations into dialetheism, in pressing the possibility of inconsistent theories that are nevertheless meaningful, valid, rational, and true call that assumption into question. If consistency does turn out to be a necessary condition for any of these notions, dialetheism prompts us to articulate why; just by pushing philosophers to find arguments for what previously were undisputed beliefs renders a valuable service (Scharp 2007.p. 544). And if consistency turns out not to be an essential requirement for all theories, then the way is open for the rational exploration of areas in philosophy and the sciences that have been traditionally closed off.”

~The metaphysics Research Lab Center for the Study of Language and Information

Stanford University.

The greatest of paradoxes remain unreconciled, one reason being is that they pertain to a different structure or framework of thought in which we don’t have absolute truth about. In our logical reasoning and rationalisation of the world we need a string of consistency to organise ourselves and everything around us. This is not to say that everything that is true falls under the same rule of thought. And this certainly should not mean we stop investigating the paradox, they are a glimpse into the unknown order of things, or perhaps are not based on any type of order, especially the way that reasoned truth is. Here is where we get uncomfortable, kind of like a cognitive dissonance of the thought and the paradox itself. It is here that dialetheism tries to pin down all the details of the thoughts in which the paradox sits and in doing so confuses the mind because it cannot arrive at any solid settled conclusions or rational basis. Dialethism brings duality into the centre of its grip, inspecting it inside the palm of its hand. It is a fascination of the human as part of the whole and as an individual entity. For instance the microcosm and the macrocosm, they are individual but not totally independent of each other, the duality is inside of the nonduality and so on.

Mysticism being in the domain of non-factual substance in regards to mainstream science and philosophy will always remain in a different realm of understanding, one that we don’t understand in logical ways but seems to make sense to our intuition, which is also unexplainable by definition of reason, and here we see similarities between the mystic and the paradox. So it is no wonder many great mystic philosophers tinkered into paradoxical theories via poetry. The anti-mystic philosopher has a different basis on which he places his own understandings of things, and I think all fields of thought and diverse philosophies are necessary so we can have a meaningful exchange of dialogue, if anything, different ideas and approaches are needed so we can keep testing and pushing the boundaries in knowledge of all kinds.

To the mystic the paradoxes make sense on only what a rationalist would call irrational grounds, which is true based on “Consistency is a requirement for truth”. Paradox’s are inconsistent with this approach hence dialethism being subject to much condemnation. But if the paradox is inconsistent in classical logic but consistent in simultaneous truths of opposing components, and makes sense in its own unique form via intuition and logical paradox then we surely are exploring completely different realms of truth and understandings, which brings us into the metaphysical aspects of life and existence, which should be of immense importance, not just in certain fields of study but also in the individual and life in general. This clearly does not apply to all or just “any” paradox or certain contradictions, as not all can hold themselves together in such ways. My view on paradox’s is that we need them in order to think deeper and differently.

The paradox open's a pandoras box of the mind, we twist it like an eternal Rubik cube and philosophise about every detail inside the box. Perhaps the paradox represents ourselves on deeper levels, ( which goes right into our atomic structure, and the very building blocks of the universe) it gives us something in which to test ourselves against ourselves. We bounce between the two extremities hoping they can organise into some logical equation. We need the paradox for it opens space in which to enter ourselves deeply, to explore curiosity and wonder through different thinking mechanisms and go beyond the mind in some sense. If everything had a fixed result or the limitation of truth placed upon it then we needn’t think past the answer of that absolute truth. It is only through the unknown that we think on deeper levels into the unknowing, if we already knew then we wouldn’t need to think any deeper. We need the unknown, to test and experiment with the mind, to create understanding, open mindedness, to go into the core of being and to gain knowledge metaphysically and otherwise. The correlation between the paradox and the very foundation of the universe and our very atomic structure goes hand in hand.

The paradox is not meant to be reconciled in logical ways (even though there is a definition of logical paradox in philosophy) i.e. because it logically cannot, perhaps it will forever only make sense to our intuition, which is also unexplainable. That should drive the seeker even further inwards to discover new ways in which to approach angles, angles of the mind and all things, because it also ties into mathematics. I could keep connecting the paradox here, which links into the quantum.. in fact, in its truth it is a quantum phenomenon. I think some of the answers rest inside quantum physics. And,

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don’t understand quantum mechanics." ~Richard Feynman, see the irony once again?

Trying to balance the rational, logical and reasoning mind with the intuitive, mystical and imaginative mind is a dichotomy in itself, hence the struggle to bridge both worlds without appearing a little mad can be a difficult task, they all serve a purpose in which the seeker hopes to find, amongst the balance of the psyche. It is true that classical logic is in many ways more limited than that of a paraconsistent logic, which brings me to this conclusion,

The seeker finds his comfort in the unknown and discomfort within the world of facts, the unknown to the seeker is what knowing is to the one whom thinks he knows, thus in one sense the mystic becomes limitless whilst the knower remains limited.

~Leya Hunter.