All is right—or all is good. In order to see how all is good we will first see how all that is not good is not so bad after all. Understanding this is essentially understanding that contradictions can be true. Just parsing our second sentence we see solving the problem of all things not being good by recognizing all things
are good is itself overcoming a contradiction. Exploring this tricky territory is worth our while because seeing all things as good puts us in a place where just as we'd have it is just as it is. Here no conflict is too great and our virtuosity in achieving good things is uncontested. Here all is right.
We use the word “right” in the sense contrasted by “wrong”. Since we're going to be reasoning in support of our conclusion about right and wrong with some discussion of true and false, something easily confused with right and wrong, we will also use “good” and “bad” in place of right and wrong to avoid confusion. We work with contradiction as it is only realistic to do so. One reason is that things we take to be wrong appear as contradictions, impossibilities bringing out our ire that they are allowed to exist, or else things that contradict our own belief of what is right. A second reason is simply that any real solution to this problem is begging to be disproved unless we leave things in a stasis in which bad still exists. By virtue of our being something in particular, we are implicitly and unavoidably in conflict with all that is in contradiction to ourselves. So, weather we like it or not, all is not good. That we can experience it to be right, allowing the contradiction of simultaneous good and bad, can be motivated by the simple observation of where we already possess this talent in our lives, where we engage in desirable conflict.
Sometimes we work hard, grimacing and groaning as we struggle to complete and perfect our work, then finish to find ourselves very gratified. We aren't just gratified that we don't have to work anymore. Quite to the contrary, we're gratified at having accomplished what we did, and in fact would have grimaced and groaned much more strongly if we had been interrupted or prevented from finishing. This suggests the way in which all can be good. Here we have grimacing which we'd have no other way. When a performer emotes strife, it is still a good experience for the performer. This is good stress, good conflict. This is not imposition in opposition to our own choices, it is the stress of a fully proportionate conflict. This is recognizing the function of conflict in our lives. To make this a more pervasive response to the bad in our lives, let's take a closer look at the basic mechanism behind “wrong”: contradiction.
The problematic kind of contradiction is the paradoxical kind that we will call
actual contradiction. An actual contradiction is one that isn't simply a hypothesis, but is present and true. The existence of actual contradiction is itself contradictory but unavoidable as is evidenced by the famous Liar's Paradox “I am lying”—or more simply “this statement is false”. Consideration of the phrase forces us to conclude either it or its opposite is actual. There is a way to come to an understanding of actual contradiction looking at its nearby relatives,
posited contradiction and
seeming contradiction. Posited contradiction is simply statement of impossible conditions—“the box is full and the box is empty,” is a statement that can clearly never be true, but is harmless enough because it is only posited, or considered. Seeming contradiction is statement of counterintuitive conditions—“the fastest way to finish is to work slowly”. A seeming contradiction can be true because there is no real contradiction in it, rather it is merely confusingly similar to the other forms of contradiction. So for some tasks one makes fewer mistakes when working slowly, hence finishing the job more quickly. However, can a posited contradiction ever be actual? Only true things can be actual, and all false things can only ever be posited, so no, of course not. But in a world where the positing of a phrase implies the actuality of an impossibility—a world containing the Liar's Paradox—the simultaneous answer, yes absolutely, should come as no surprise.
Let's just recap the inevitability of facing up to this issue. There is a certain infinite regress in the Liar's Paradox. Even when only positing it, it implies that some contradiction must be actual because:
- consideration of the phrase forces us to ask if it could ever be true, something that itself can only be A) true or B) false, and
- whichever the case, a contradiction must be actual, because if A) then a contradiction is actual because a person can make a contradictory statement truthfully, but if B) a person can never make this statement truthfully and so upon interpretation a person can only ever not be lying when making the statement, and again we have an actual contradiction.
So how can this be? The explanation is that actual contradiction is just the passing from posited contradiction to seeming contradiction. Actual contradiction is the border between the undistinguished and the distinguished. We discussed this in
Conflict where we saw contemplation of anything from the ultimate—if “That which is not” is not “Everything”, it is itself a distinct thing and therefore to be counted among “Everything”, where we find it “is” after all—to the most mundane of distinctions—if a thing has parts their existence surely contradicts the unicity of the whole—leads to contradiction. Prior to the making of a distinction, say naming the thing “That which is not”, we experienced no contradiction. Examining the distinction we detect contradiction. Upon reflection we note there is no ultimate and so “That which is not” refers to a continually changing thing—each time we consider it a new concept of “Everything” comes into play. In
Strength we discussed a distinction that creates contradiction without infinite regress. We noted that in wishing to increase our options we were wishing to have a choice over not having a choice. Clearly we accept our ability to increase our options, so accepting the existence of actual contradiction should not be far behind. We see that our options were limited at a time that we had no knowledge of them, but with the simple change of context we made by considering our options we demonstrated that in fact we had options. Did we have options or not? It is up to us to see this question in the correct light as context provides.
Now to the contradictions that we don't experience as simple distinctions in our perception. What about those things around us that are just plain wrong. They should not be, and it is just unbelievably annoying that they are. This annoyance is a definite liability in our lives. While it may be a defense mechanism, it frequently persists when all our efforts fail, and it sometimes creates further annoyance of its own. The obvious way to remove it with out leaving ourselves defenseless is to remove our distinction of what is wrong—but keep it too. We remember it is possible to feel conflict in a way that is proportionate, and in some sense, not wrong at all.
How can what is wrong be right? Well, in the final context how can anything be wrong at all? Everything is what it is. If things are whatever is implied by the distinction that defines them, how can they be any more wrong than that which exists in distinction with them? If all things are distinctions in the ultimate undistinguished thing we call (contradictorily) “Everything”, no thing can be any more wrong than “Everything” itself. We see this idea in everyday life as “we are the products of our environment”. This doesn't let us off the hook for navigating right and wrong—as we said, wrong is inevitably with us—but now we can see it in context. Nothing is necessarily wrong in all contexts, or, there is always a context in which a thing is not wrong. So the choice of perspective “All is right” is ours to be had. Finding it in any one circumstance is a matter of identifying the way the impossibility in each wrong, each actual contradiction, is a matter of context.
Take those things we find wrong in ourselves. There's a contradiction here to be navigated: how can something about ourselves be against our own concept of right? It's us after all. The really obvious contradiction is wanting to do something we wish we didn't want to do. If we examine both sides of the contradiction we'll see why we want it, why we don't, and that any of the wrong we're experiencing just by being in conflict can be completely set aside. So we don't need to feel bad about ourselves that we have this contradiction, contradiction is completely normal. At the same time the tendencies we see are also just natural extensions of our own state. If we accept these wrongs as right, we can continue to feel them, while maintaining composure in searching for ways to remove them, possibly being more successful in that endeavor consequently. If it's something about ourselves we don't like but don't “want” specifically—we don't like some physical attribute of ourselves—we still need to remember, what “we” want is about “us”, and that “us” is the person with those attributes. Think of the consequences of success. Becoming something we aren't is just going to give us a different set of contradictions. Perhaps even considering this we still would consider other attributes better, but at minimum we still can consider our attributes and our opinion of those attributes as right, and not something to impede our other activities.
Tougher wrongs are to be found in those things outside ourselves. Perhaps we have a task of accomplishing an impossible goal. If we can get to the understanding where this impossible goal is in fact possible, certainly our problem is solved. This goes directly to our example about choices where we needed to see the situation differently, at which time we didn't accomplish the impossible, but didn't have to anymore either. In everyday life we might call this thinking outside the box. We also have the benefit, without even transcending the situation by “thinking outside the box” that by accepting our task or opponent as possible or right we won't be looking for the impossible method or considering doing what we consider wrong. We will only be looking for new dynamics which remove the conflict when it is viewed from the perspective in which it
is contradictory—which is not all the time. This, at minimum, lifts a weight enhancing our inexhaustibility. Perhaps believing the objectionable tendency of another to be right itself just doesn't seem right. Accepting that behavior is possibly not in us. We can accept that and still see the transition of context between ourselves and the other. Looked at practically we will be able, without conflict, to interact with the alternatives and recast the situation to one which both of us consider right—we will not be imposing something against that person's choices and yet will be obtaining a desired result.
Take even the toughest situation. Someone or something is utterly destroying your world. Certainly taking this lying down is not the thing to do, but if you really have no choice over this, your world is already destroyed. Put the frustration aside on at least one level so you can continue to operate. Do not accept the inevitable, it is right that you are in conflict with this particular person or thing—go ahead and be in conflict. But feel it proportionately. Let go of what you don't have and move forward with what you can create. Will you be successful? We can't say, but regardless of the situation, you will be composed, and you will possess virtuosity.
tags: contradiction virtuosity inexhaustibility alright proportion