on paradox

[bert]

paradox: if used as a contrived idea or as relating to contraries,paradox is simply,though indirectly,stating that extremes - opposites and contradictories - meet or intersect and fullfil each other and that their linkage of subject and predicate is the mean of their ratio.
thus:Black,Grey,White - all opposites relate to each other by their variability,which does not mean that A is Z,or the reverse.it may imply that both A and Z are degrees of each other.but while A and Z are as they are,they are not each other.the weakened form or superimposition gives variability to both.our clumsy language itself here precludes gymnastical predicates,..,that A is Z or that Black is White.
there is no paradox,paradox exists only where the same relation is self-contradictory or when two opposites take over each others' qualities.but mostly,paradoxes are involved with semantical or syntactical ambiguities,making a circular argument: "it is true that it is false",which is hyperbolic assertion for forcefulness of expression,or "trying to be clever".the statement should be: "it is untrue",or "it is a false statement",nothing more.

[bert]

again,one could more picturesquely assert of a book: "it is the greatest of all styles ,it is without style",which is a series of mis-statements,and is a misnomers.the statement should be: "its very stylelessness gives significance".

[bert]

to give an old 'play on words' variety : on one side of the card is written the words : "on the other side of the cards is written an understatement"; on turning the cards over appear the words : "on the other side of the card is written an overstatement".the best answer would be the Cockney's well known mouthfull...another is that it is a hyperbolic statement,..,abstract conjunctionalism of two opposite words making a meaning as a misnomer.any self-conflicting statement is the extreme of understatement and overstatement.thus: "I feel dead and alive".

[bert]

paradox is a disease of fallacious vocabulary .a number of so-called paradoxes are mere tactless acts,flabby thinking moved to action by apparent contradictories: "he is an atheist,an unbeliever" , whereas he may be a great believer (in no God)than a believer in God.does this logically consequence, as natural inference that follows directly from the proof of another supposition, the assertions : "he believes in disbelief", or "he disbeliefs in belief"?

[BMcGilly07]

There, I'm glad we've all come to an agreement. ;)

But seriously, Bert, speaking for myself, I find it very difficult to read someone else's post if they don't care to capitalize and punctuate. It makes it harder to read, and almost subconciously conveys to me the thought that, "Well if he doesn't care about what he writes to treat it properly why should I care to read it?" If I remember correctly, English is your second language, but unless you come from a background using logograms (had to look that one up), like Chinese, that shouldn't effect your writing.

-Bryan

[bert]

Hi Bryan,

speaking for myself, I find it very difficult to read someone else's post if they don't care to capitalize and punctuate. It makes it harder to read, and almost subconciously conveys to me the thought that, "Well if he doesn't care about what he writes to treat it properly why should I care to read it?"

You are not the first...

Although having arguments why I would continue as usual, I'll make an effort.

[bert]

Apart from the essential connectedness of variables between opposites (whether known or not) there is another way of faulting the phony paradoxical. If we use things relating to semantical meanings, the paradox becomes more shadowy - thus: "On the other side of the card is drawn a true portrait". On turning over the card appear the words "On the other side of the card is drawn a false portrait". I have simply replaced the words 'statement' by 'portrait' and 'drawn' by 'written'. (See my third post). It is now proven in an ambiguous manner that the whole thing is absurd, there is no portrait, true or false. By the fact itself there is no statement , as such, entirely true or false. I should stress that 'written' and 'drawn' are the same, that a portrait is a statement, or a statement is a likeness of something - therefore the latter fails as having no positive statement of anything. It is a looking-glass illusion - a reverse reflection of the word explicit in the reflection as further meaning; a predicate without the statement - nothing equals nothing. Truth is inexistent when anything is entirely true or false; thus a thing entirely black is not white. Our real dilemma is that nearly everything has 'quasiness' and will intersect either end. There is a series of letter that when reversed are the same, making it possible that a word formed from such letters, on being reversed, has the same meaning; which proves that forms as well as meanings may be ambiguous.

[bert]

There are other such tricks by reflective reversal, all of which means that our reasonings and mentations rely on an illusory notable achievement semantics held together by a loose syntax. So, many judgements have as their criteria this twisting hypotenusa as weight of thought. The greatest absurdities are seldom self-evident, though man is a ceaseless exhibitor of his own.

[bert]

David Quinn:

Reject utterly everything that one has learned and start afresh, that is my dictum. Accept nothing but the logical process.

and I go on where I left:

Another such paradox arises: by the use of adjectives that are either autologic or not, and by onomatopoeia (itself heterologous) as distinct from words denoting properties. Then,..., thrust, spurious,soul,elegant,lunge,mind,splendid; or colloquialisms,shove,scrounge, gorblimey,etc, ebullient, if crude, often have expressive virtue.Thruth, vulgarly rendered, suffers not by such emphasis. Thus, autologic words have the merit of being colourful, vivid, and having an emotional catholicity. If a friend said to me: "She stinks" - then I know a bookful. moreover, the meaning of these picturesque words almost visualizes itself whereas heterologous words lack these forms of veracity. there are so many examples that more are unnecessary. a vague paradox intrudes when we ask wheteher the words 'heterological' is 'autological' or heterological. They are both in as much as either.. having dog-knotted paradox.
we should mention that the anomalies of language have never been indexed (except till maybe the 80ties by some underground organizations). the very thought of this 'undertaking' as a prelude to a rational syntax, etc., gives anaemia to all scholars and logicians.
when we have developed a mind that can grasp a simple form, with analogous meanings ans associations by contiguity, then our sensory continuum will respond interpretationally even if symbolically. having evolved such a heterologous, chancy, quasi, or uninterpretable language it is not surprising that it would think for us. to revise and vivify meanings we must revert to the naive, the crude or the colloquial for a simple expressionism without preamble and hiatus of qualifications. Truth is evident in simplicities; overlooked in complexities. know Thruth by this: it is radiant and needs no emblazoning. which suggest indirectly that most 'logical forms' are another dehydrated hippopotamus.