Great Philosophical Paradoxes

[Taeguk]

Hi!

The Tao Te Ching councils us that "true words often seem paradoxical."

And when you think about it, when viewed from a certain perspective, many truths seem contradictory at first glance.

They are often dismissed by people who find them to be meaningless and empty statements.

"Empty" statements, of course, often function like windows: their transparency allows one see through the words to something beyond them.

What truths have you discovered that have seemed paradoxical at first, but, upon deeper reflection, reveal depth?

The art of dying is actually the art of living.

[sahyo]

what leaf can paradox root?

[Taeguk]

Hi, asheera!

Paradox sometimes hides that which roots the tree of Life. :)

[sahyo]

:)

hi taeguk

yes if thinking

[Taeguk]

Hi, asheera!

You wrote:

yes if thinking

Insightful, as always!

But sometimes thought can lead you to what is beyond thought.

And on a message forum such as this, I think the most one can convey is the thought that points.

You yourself are quite good at this "indicating".

And I thank you for it. :)

[Fool Zero]

I've sometimes heard it said that "the truth is paradoxical," period. That sounds about right to me. Another way to put that might be, "the truth is dialectical" (thesis versus antithesis, which leads to thesis and antithesis, which leads to synthesis).

A few months ago we had some visitors from another forum where the tautology "A=A" is held to be the foundation of all truth. The thread is an extremely long one (34 pages) and unfortunately I don't have a way of linking you to the exact post(s) where we discussed A=A. The subject comes up on Page 25 (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=1019&st=360) and continues to crop up for several pages. Perhaps one of the reasons I found myself with so little respect for the tautology as a "truth" was precisely because, unlike the truths I'm more used to navigating, it appeared completely non-paradoxical -- hence, in some important way, dead.

I'm not prepared to offer any paradoxical truths of my own at this point, but I'm happy to refer you to my favorite collector of such: the late Alan Watts, whom I imagine you're already familiar with. For anyone who's not, most of what he wrote is still found in print rather than online but there's a sample here (http://www.alanwatts.com/essential_aw1.html).

[scameter]

That life is more than life.

[Michael]

The heart sees further
than the mind,
for the heart finds truth
where thought finds paradox

[Noway2Zero]

by seeking to have nothing of your own, you will be utterly complete

by removing yourself, by forgetting everything you know, you will see the Truth

"Ye shall know the TRUTH and the TRUTH shall make you FREE" - John 8:32

[Taeguk]

Hi!

Fool Zero, you wrote:

I've sometimes heard it said that "the truth is paradoxical," period. That sounds about right to me. Another way to put that might be, "the truth is dialectical" (thesis versus antithesis, which leads to thesis and antithesis, which leads to synthesis).

I think you're right about "the truth is paradoxical". Simple and elegant.

"The truth is dialectical" sounds bit too Hegelian for my taste! :lol: Although I can see how that fits.

You go on to say:

A few months ago we had some visitors from another forum where the tautology "A=A" is held to be the foundation of all truth. The thread is an extremely long one (34 pages) and unfortunately I don't have a way of linking you to the exact post(s) where we discussed A=A. The subject comes up on Page 25 and continues to crop up for several pages. Perhaps one of the reasons I found myself with so little respect for the tautology as a "truth" was precisely because, unlike the truths I'm more used to navigating, it appeared completely non-paradoxical -- hence, in some important way, dead.

Ah, "A = A", the "principle of non-contradiction", queen-mother of all tautologies!

I can't say I've ever been overly impressed by that, either. :)

Although to be fair to Aristotle who is given the dubious honor of having thought this up, I think it was originally phrased as "It is impossible that the same thing both be and not be in the same way, at the same time." That's a little more open, I think.

The big deal about A = A is that you can't prove it untrue (using standard, Western logic), since anybody trying to disprove it winds up using the law itself. In the context of logic and debate, it is an invaluable principle, but in the broader context of life, truth, existence, and experience, I think it tends to break down.

It's all about the context, I guess! :). Compare Aristotle's "It is impossible that the same thing both be and not be in the same way, at the same time" to Nagarjuna's "tetralemma":

"Everything is real and not real
Both real and not real
Neither real nor not real."

I also find it interesting, Fool Zero, that you are so used to "paradoxical" philosophy that you find "A = A" to be dry and dead because of its very obviousness! In the West, I think it's more common for people to complain about the "inscrutable" statements of Buddhism and Taoism. It's a very welcome paradigmn shift here on "The Big View" :lol:

And yes, Alan Watts certainly has quite a bit of wisdom to say. For the record, the first "paradox" I posted wasn't really "mine"; it's just a paraphrasing of something that has been said many times by many different people. I don't think the truth ever really belongs to any particular person. I think truth is the most shareable thing there is. We all have access to it, it belongs to all of us, it is all of us.

Others have gone on to write:

That life is more than life.

The heart sees further
than the mind,
for the heart finds truth
where thought finds paradox

buddha mind is empty mind
enlightenment is emptiness

by seeking to have nothing of your own, you will be utterly complete
by removing yourself, by forgetting everything you know, you will see the Truth
"Ye shall know the TRUTH and the TRUTH shall make you FREE" - John 8:32

' lest you become as a little child.... '

Om Mani Padme Hum! Thank you all for sharing :)

Oh, and here's another:

The most amazing thing is that men are everywhere surrounded by death, and yet not one of them ever believes that he will die.
(paraphrased from the Bhagavad Gita).

[sahyo]

buddha mind is empty mind

enlightenment is emptiness



hands psyche tooth brush



;)

[sahyo]

taeguk: thank you


thank you


:)

[Fool Zero]

that's[/b] what it means! Cool!]

[i]"The truth is dialectical" sounds bit too Hegelian for my taste...

I've seen a lot of people complain about Hegel; that might have something to do with why I've never gone out of my way to read him (and can't even remember if ever happened to read him anyway or not). Perhaps I'm not even using "dialectic" in the same way that Hegel intended, but I'm not seeing much difference between a dialectic and a paradox. I think my favorite dialectics-and-paradoxes story is the one about the six or so blind guys investigating the elephant. From their perspective(s) it must've seemed nothing short of paradoxical that one of them could be describing the elephant as like a wall while others were pronouncing it very like a snake or spear or fan or tree or rope. From ours, of course, it's not much of a paradox. The process of fitting those different descriptions together so that they made any sense, also sounds like a dialectic -- well, maybe a hyperdialectic. I notice, by the way, that the term "hyperdialectic" is already in use. If I don't happen to be using it in the same way it's been used before, why, maybe it was time for it to take on a new meaning. ;)

... I think [A = A] was originally phrased as "It is impossible that the same thing both be and not be in the same way, at the same time." That's a little more open, I think.

That way of putting it would seem to hinge on the meaning of "in the same way". Is an elephant like and unlike a tree "in the same way" or in different ways? I have a hunch that Aristotle may have had simpler examples in mind when he came up with that principle.

I don't know if you bothered to poke through that "Genius Forum" thread but on Page 28 (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=1019&st=405) I pretty much summed up my position on the "A=A" thing:"A=A" is a ground rule, a necessary one for arguments of the kind that you and the Geniuses are presenting. An example of a ground rule used in a different context is that a chessboard has to measure eight squares by eight squares. That's not to say we couldn't play some interesting games on a 7 x 7 or 9 x 9 board. If we did, though, we'd be playing something other than chess. "A=A" defines one kind of playing field, where you apparently can step in the same river over and over because you=you and river=river forever. This (pointing to imaginary object) is the same knife that Dan'l Boone killed a bear with in 1775. Of course it's had two new blades and three new handles since then, but it's the same knife.
In the West, I think it's more common for people to complain about the "inscrutable" statements of Buddhism and Taoism.

Ah, but according to the time zone info in our profiles, we both seem to live slightly west of the West! ;)

It's a very welcome paradigmn shift here on "The Big View"

Yes. Although I take no credit for that myself, I might not be saying quite the same things on some other board that I'm willing to say here.

Welcome, by the way. :)

[schrodinger]

So, you like paradoxes? :think:

Psalm 8 asks the question: “What is Man, that Thou art mindful of him?”
But, who has not wondered: “What is God, that man is mindful of Him?”
If God stops thinking/creating man, then man ceases to exist.
But, if man stops thinking/creating God, does God still exist?
Or are man and God images of the same thing, and if so, what is that thing called?

[Michael]

Schrodinger, your question marks the point of departure from divine consciousness to human, or profane, consciousness and you immediately step into the limitless swamp of questions and answers.

I for one have never wondered, "What is God that man is so mindful of Him". Even in my darkest times there is within a divine consciousness, a consciousness of the divine as the tree is conscious of the earth from which it grows.

The paradox you ask us to consider is, how should I put it? - a bit iffy?

[schrodinger]

I for one have never wondered, "What is God that man is so mindful of Him". Even in my darkest times there is within a divine consciousness, a consciousness of the divine as the tree is conscious of the earth from which it grows.

The paradox you ask us to consider is, how should I put it? - a bit iffy? -Alpha-

Very interesting response, Alpha. But is the tree conscious of the Earth which gives it life? Or does the tree just ‘enjoy’ being a tree, which in turn gives joy to its creator? (if there is a creator) <_<
Why does mankind, or at least a significant proportion of mankind, feel that we must kowtow to, worship, obey and fear that which gives us life? Why can we not just ‘enjoy’ that which is given, just as the tree does, with no strings attached? :think:

I propose that the reason we cannot just sit back and enjoy what is given is simply because we do have this divine mindfulness, or at least we think we do. Is this mindfulness a good thing or a bad thing? Does it elevate us above the plants and animals, or is it the source of all our misery, or both? That is the real paradox!

[Michael]

Paradox? I see no paradox.

All living things are
as the fingers of our hands
or the hearts within us.

The bee does not live, or
the lion hunt without us,
nor does any living thing live
one apart from another.

[bito]

Why does mankind, or at least a significant proportion of mankind, feel that we must kowtow to, worship, obey and fear that which gives us life?

Belief that Life or God gives us life is to fall into the error that there is a Subject and an object , and as fear of this illusory gap or division grows, Subject and object becomes Subject vs. object, or object vs. Subject.

I propose that the reason we cannot just sit back and enjoy what is given is simply because we do have this divine mindfulness, or at least we think we do. Is this mindfulness a good thing or a bad thing? Does it elevate us above the plants and animals, or is it the source of all our misery, or both? That is the real paradox!

Mind wants to divide awareness so it can fix itself on a thought (ie. the thought of mindfulness, the thought of giving, the thought of elevation, the thought of misery). This is why we suffer, for thought is not an objective thing outside our subjective thinking. We suffer because we are trying to turn illusion into reality.

This is our cosmic joke, this is the ultimate paradox, this trying to make subject and object become real. :rofl:

[schrodinger]

Belief that Life or God gives us life is to fall into the error that there is a Subject and an object , and as fear of this illusory gap or division grows, Subject and object becomes Subject vs. object, or object vs. Subject. –bito-

I like that idea of no subject and object, but that brings me back to one of my first questions: “are man and God images of the same thing, and if so, what is that thing called?”

Mind wants to divide awareness so it can fix itself on a thought (ie. the thought of mindfulness, the thought of giving, the thought of elevation, the thought of misery). This is why we suffer, for thought is not an objective thing outside our subjective thinking. We suffer because we are trying to turn illusion into reality. –bito-

OK. I agree that thoughts and concepts are not real things. But we have turned many thoughts into reality through applied science and engineering, such as the computers we are using right now. For an engineer to turn a thought into reality is highly satisfying, not a source of suffering. However, I can see where the “higher” thoughts, the unattainable ones, such as the concept of God, can be the source of much suffering, although some claim they are the source of great solace.

This is our cosmic joke, this is the ultimate paradox, this trying to make subject and object become real. –bito-

But that seems to be somehow programmed into our consciousness, part of being human, this awareness of something beyond ourselves that we seek to prove is real. If we are the object of a cosmic joke, who then is the joker? :alien:

[sahyo]

Mind wants to divide awareness so it can fix itself on a thought

thinking it is mind wanting is thinking


This is our cosmic joke, this is the ultimate paradox,

thinking it is the ultimate paradox is thinking


when thinking is seen clearly thinking thinking that stuff will cease

[Michael]

[QUOTE]"You are the call and I am the answer,
You are the wish, and I the fulfillment,
You are the night, and I the day,
What else, it is perfect enough,
It is perfectly complete,
You and I,
What more ---- ?
Strange, how we suffer in spite of this?"

-- D.H. Lawrence



You and I.

Worlds within worlds have been created within that one teeny, tiny three-letter bridge-word: a...n...d

Drop 'and', and there are no worlds ...


You just keep on amazing me. For a moment I thought the above was contradicting what you said in this post. Of course it's not, it's just the way the prejudiced mind (mine) choses to interprete the information it has.

Beautiful, just drop the 'and'. :lol:

[Taeguk]

Hi!

I think this discussion has really taken an interesting turn!

asheera, you wrote:


thinking it is mind wanting is thinking

thinking it is the ultimate paradox is thinking

bito, you wrote:


Mind wants to divide awareness so it can fix itself on a thought (ie. the thought of mindfulness, the thought of giving, the thought of elevation, the thought of misery). This is why we suffer, for thought is not an objective thing outside our subjective thinking. We suffer because we are trying to turn illusion into reality.

All of which, I have to say, I completely agree with! :) But I think schrodinger raises a very pertinent point when he says:

But that seems to be somehow programmed into our consciousness, part of being human

Thought seems to be inherent in human nature! And we certainly exercise it on a daily basis. It took thought to write all these posts, it took thought to create an anvenue such as "the big view", not to mention the internet, computers, etc. Thought seems unavoidable! Or, in any case, if it is avoidable, none of us here seem to be able to avoid it! And I don't really see anything wrong with that, even though I also agree with what has been said earlier. <_<

Perhaps I am somewhat confused about what has been said (and if I am, please, correct me!), but it all leaves me with a number of questions!

what role should thought play in our lives?

Is it possible to think and to be a happy human being (and I'm not sure there's an alternative to being a "thinking human being")?

And what keeps us coming back here, to think and to share thoughts, if thought itself seems to be the source of suffering and a general hindrance?

In other words, can we have our cake and eat it, too? ;)

Perhaps also, if thought is the source of suffering, and the majority of human beings seem to be overrun with thoughts (and hence, suffering), what are the implications with respect to God or to a creator?

[sahyo]

J KRISHNAMURTI:

Mind is universal, not polluted by thought. You only have your brain, which is conditioned. You can’t say “It’s my mind” … What lies beyond thought when thought is silent is attention. Attention is without activity of thought …Undirected attention of the mind contacts the brain as long as the brain is silent. Attention can only “be” when self is “not.”

[bito]

And what keeps us coming back here, to think and to share thoughts, if thought itself seems to be the source of suffering and a general hindrance?

Thinking is not the problem. The problem is attachment to thought, the believing that thought arises independently within a separate entities - your thinking belongs to you and my thinking belongs to me. This erroneous possession of thought by an illusory subject sets up this illusory subject to believe that his or her thinking must be objective truth, or why would the individual that is "I" be thinking IT?

If you identify with your social personality, your false self, your humanism, then you will identify with your thoughts as if they actually belong to you. This is the eating of the tree of good and evil, for once you believe your thoughts belong to you and my thoughts belong to me, we judge each other as having good or evil thoughts - and from this judgment that is based wholly on illusion, comes frustration, anger, hate - argument, violence, war.

In order to breakthrough this stubborn belief that mind owns its thinking, (identifying with good and evil = suffering) it is helpful to keep asking oneself - who or what is doing the thinking?

[Taeguk]

Hi!

asheera, you wrote:

Mind is universal, not polluted by thought. You only have your brain, which is conditioned. You can’t say “It’s my mind” … What lies beyond thought when thought is silent is attention. Attention is without activity of thought …Undirected attention of the mind contacts the brain as long as the brain is silent. Attention can only “be” when self is “not.”

:thumbsup:

bito, you wrote:

Thinking is not the problem. The problem is attachment to thought...

If you identify with your social personality, your false self, your humanism, then you will identify with your thoughts as if they actually belong to you. This is the eating of the tree of good and evil, for once you believe your thoughts belong to you and my thoughts belong to me, we judge each other as having good or evil thoughts - and from this judgment that is based wholly on illusion, comes frustration, anger, hate - argument, violence, war.

In order to breakthrough this stubborn belief that mind owns its thinking, (identifying with good and evil = suffering) it is helpful to keep asking oneself - who or what is doing the thinking?



That makes a great deal of sense! Thanks :)

There is one thing that puzzles me, though---Why is that "my" thoughts are different from "your" thoughts, and I only know what "you" are thinking if you communicate this to me?

[sahyo]

The problem is attachment to thought

attachment=thinking

[sahyo]

taeguk

:)

[bito]

I like that idea of no subject and object, but that brings me back to one of my first questions: “are man and God images of the same thing, and if so, what is that thing called?”

Why do you want to know this?

OK. I agree that thoughts and concepts are not real things. But we have turned many thoughts into reality through applied science and engineering, such as the computers we are using right now. For an engineer to turn a thought into reality is highly satisfying, not a source of suffering. However, I can see where the “higher” thoughts, the unattainable ones, such as the concept of God, can be the source of much suffering, although some claim they are the source of great solace.

We do not turn thoughts into reality, reality thinks and form appears.

But that seems to be somehow programmed into our consciousness, part of being human, this awareness of something beyond ourselves that we seek to prove is real. If we are the object of a cosmic joke, who then is the joker?

What could be beyond awareness?

[bito]

The problem is attachment to thought

attachment=thinking

no, attachment = thinking of

thinking is wording

[Noway2Zero]

there is nothing to see here, move along ;)

[Starry_Canopy]

To the enlightened, day is night and night is day.

[Fool Zero]

(Taeguk, several posts ago):
There is one thing that puzzles me, though---Why is that "my" thoughts are different from "your" thoughts ... ?

Point of view, I'd say.

As for,
I only know what "you" are thinking if you communicate this to me?
-- there lie some juicy paradoxes! Even if you communicate something to me, I don't "know" it unless I also create it for myself.

What I create at my end may or may not match what you intended to communicate at yours.

Intending to mislead me, you could and tell me you're thinking one thing when (as far as you know) you're actually thinking something quite different.

But even if you're thinking A while trying to convince me you're thinking B instead, you can't completely avoid thinking B as you do so. Ironically, your attempt at deception becomes partially true.

If I listen not only to the content of what you say but also to the context in which you're saying it, I may even come to realize that you're trying to deceive me. Thus (depending on what we count as "communicating"), either you may end up communicating more than you intended to, or I may end up with some kind of understanding of you that you haven't, strictly speaking, communicated to me.

Meanwhile, what's to guarantee that you're not deceived yourself, even as you assert that B is real for you and deny that A is?

[schrodinger]

OK. I agree that thoughts and concepts are not real things. But we have turned many thoughts into reality through applied science and engineering, such as the computers we are using right now. For an engineer to turn a thought into reality is highly satisfying, not a source of suffering. However, I can see where the “higher” thoughts, the unattainable ones, such as the concept of God, can be the source of much suffering, although some claim they are the source of great solace. –schrodinger--

We do not turn thoughts into reality, reality thinks and form appears—bito—

Well, that is a romantic way of expressing it! But I have initiated projects which have taken years to complete, and were only completed due to some extraordinary personal effort and self-sacrifice. :duh: But I have no real disagreement with your more poetic viewpoint either.



But that seems to be somehow programmed into our consciousness, part of being human, this awareness of something beyond ourselves that we seek to prove is real. If we are the object of a cosmic joke, who then is the joker?—schrodinger--

What could be beyond awareness—bito—


This is from one of my first posts on the TBV, concerning Wisdom:

Access something (motor or reflex)
Experience what is accessed (awareness)
Understand what is experienced (perception)
Learn from the understanding (knowledge)
Remember and use the understanding in the future. (wisdom)

Here, awareness is only the second step to Wisdom. I would add that beyond Wisdom is Truth.

Certainly I don’t propose that this formula is perfect. I welcome your comments and corrections. :)

[sojourner]

and at that point that man comes face to face with the Truth, he comes full circle and consummates his humanity.