Our world and interaction with it leads inevitably to paradox. As we've observed, just the
positing of the Liar's Paradox forces us to accept
contradiction as actual—an irrational thing to do. But we are equipped to handle the very real nature of the
impossible. We've already
noted this feature of life gives us multiplicity of distinction, and puts life in all its
possibility in our purview. Accepting the irrational, and making sense of it shows us more of our own position in life. It sounds contradictory, as it must, but most of us, if not all of us, already understand this and operate within its strange rules of reason, even while we pretend we don't—as we must.
People know anything is possible. By anything, I include that which is given to us in an already impossible state. To believe the impossible you might think we have to be gullible. Possibly, but then we each have our own set of gullibilities, though many of us seem much more skeptical than others. Even the most skeptical among us will stop, hesitate, proceed fearfully and delicately, on hearing a proposition, impossible or otherwise, if it strikes at something fundamental. We have our pride, our self worth, and if some cornerstone of that is questioned by one whose credibility follows directly from association with that very cornerstone, we have to think it through. If the questioner is wrong, that damages our foundation by association, and if the questioner is right, then our cornerstone has been pulled. So it doesn't really matter if that person is saying something impossible, the contradiction is present in our belief. Our belief creates paradox by positing its own falsehood—through the associated person.
Similarly, we know that all life can be seen from whatever distinction we choose. This can be seen optimistically or pessimistically. Optimistically we look positively—we focus on what is good, and characterize the bad as deviation, defect that can be accommodated or repaired. Pessimistically we impact others negatively when we trick them into behaviors they wouldn't have chosen, creating rules that are specified in relation to our own future actions—“when the king does it, it isn't illegal,” or, “this is different, because my intent is to further the cause of the rule”—because everything is right in some context, so we can always find a way to justify whatever we choose. Consequences, in the sense of implication, of our choices
are what they are though, and our webs do become tangled.
Further, more than knowing these things, we love them. We love to be surprised. Surprise puts us directly in contact with multiplicity of distinction. We are tantalized by the possibility of the impossible. We love to reassess the situation under alternate assumptions—applying multiple distinctions. Miraculous feats, plot twists, inspirational reversals, schadenfreude, they all involve a belief that is contradicted and causes us to rewrite our understanding of the situation, redistinguish all elements under new terms. The thing doesn't change, and yet it does.
We consider ourselves irrational, but is it baseless irrationality? If we accept the truth of irrationality in life, we can remove unhelpful self-discipline, and move on to finding rational solutions. When we reject something as irrational, we stop working on it. Well, rightly to the person witnessing the irrational feature of life, the problem is still there, so to deny a solution just causes them to behave two ways at all times—under the assumptions of the incorrectness of the irrational observation, and under the very real impact of the observation. It's an expensive way to live. If we allow our irrational observations to come under consideration we can move forward with a singular life, that doesn't require constant calculation of optimality of choice as applied to the two or more understandings of our lives. That is, a person operating under both “I have bad luck in this arena” and “that is irrational, do not assume unequal probabilities for equal events” is going to have to avoid situations that tempt bad luck, all the while only choosing situations that can be justified rationally. This is a lot of work, and bound to run into further conflict. Better to understand how bad luck can be seen to have an explanation, or how rational probability doesn't apply the the arena under consideration.
With all as distinction and with room only for all distinctions in our reality, we find a deep source of explanation for life's surprises both unpleasant and pleasant. It is simply that the things we see around us function under more than one distinction. When the irrational seems to enter our lives, we can make progress by accepting its possibility and working with it. We appreciate those positive irrationalities and explore the perspectives they show us, and for those that impose on us, we recognize that if the fix is in, simply accepting it and counterlevering our desires with our new awareness of the fix frees us. Even if we aren't successful at countering the irrationalities in our lives, we're freed from living the tangled life of multiple premises while enjoying the fantastical beauty that the paradox of impossibility creates.
tags: science freedom surprise contradiction irrationality philosophy inasmuch beauty