Lindsay Mell presented the overview for the session, which was on the topic:  ‘Paradox as a Life Principle’.

At the outset, Lindsay discussed Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936)’s considerable work in the field of paradox, quoting Chesterton’s perspective that:

Lindsay attested to the substantial aspect of paradox as a form of inspiration in the context of life experience.  Yet he also noted that ‘paradox involves complexity by its very nature’.

‘Paradox provides the foundation for human experience, but can be constrained through limited perception.

‘The authenticity of the paradox principle can be abrogated when paradox degenerates into parody, a related state which is typically characterised by humour, superficiality and a lack of real substance.

For instance, in this context Lindsay quoted the Chalmers Dictionary definition of ‘paradox’ as ‘that which is absurd, but may be really true’ (960).
 
‘However, paradox as a truly authentic basic life principle is imbued with intuition and spontaneity,’ Lindsay proposed.

‘Th[e] common contemporary trajectory through which sensitivity to intuit or discern the delicate intricacies of paradox is dulled … [proceeds] through sardonic presumptions, or … glib banal humour … Thence paradox becomes parody’ (from Lindsay’s Academy of the Word seminar paper entitled Paradox – coping with complexity, April 2005: 1).

Roger suggested the ‘unfolding of a fuller dimension’ of perspective was implicit in this interpretation of paradox.

While Sandy cited ‘seven dimensions’ which constituted the ‘multi-dimensional source’ of perception:  sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste, mind, and self-image or identity.

Taking an ‘interpretative position’, Jo proposed the importance of considering ‘how we are tuned to receive [intuitive] messages’.

‘Self-organising systems’ serve as instances of such a principle, Roger confirmed.

Lindsay then established the place of ‘culture’ and ‘tradition’ as key elements in the perspective of paradox.  ‘Culture has an enormous influence on the adoption and engagement of paradox,’ he said.

Simon contributed Einstein’s perspective of the substantial influence of ‘beautiful mysteries’ in life, while Steaphen referred to the influence of the simplicity of life in the 15th century, when many of the principles through which Western culture came to be grounded were being established.

Any perspective needs to be ‘consonant with reason’, Alex noted.

Lindsay concurred.  ‘History is often regarded from a certain specific aspect.  Whereas G K Chesterton applied the principle of paradox in this context, such that history could be interpreted through a basically fluid perspective.  Therefore, Chesterton interpreted history through the lens of paradox,’ he affirmed.

‘[Hence] there is a continuity and trajectory to human endeavour which we call ‘history’, even if we choose not to so name it … The challenge for us is to discern what is the significance and meaning of this continuity, which for me is also consistent in form, so we can … realise and appreciate its trajectory and/or ontology’ (April 2005: 2). 

‘Through his novel The Man Who Was Thursday – A Nightmare (1908), Chesterton characterised the whole of history and life experience as a riddle.  Orthodoxy was the touchstone in this for Chesterton.

‘For Chesterton, ‘orthodoxy’ provided a context of well-grounded authority through which the continuity of historical trajectory could derive consistent significance and meaning (April 2005: 2).

‘Consequently, it is important for structural perspectives to be realised as expansive, continuous and consistent, otherwise discourse around historical continuity becomes constrained through such notions as ‘the end of history’, based on antinomial dimensions (the lack of universal rules and/or laws).

‘Morality is grounded in rules.’

Accordingly, ‘belief systems can be complex’ as a further element in this,’ Jo noted.

Sandy explained the seventh sense of consciousness, according to Buddhist principles, as incorporating the dimensions of ‘self-image, identity and ego’.  While the eighth sense was ‘access to the unknown’.

Pat proposed that ‘mankind has not yet really experienced [substantial] appreciation’ of such awareness.

‘Zen is no mind.  It is experience beyond consciousness’, Roger contributed.

Whereas ‘ego is intellect’.

‘Ego can be a tool through which to be sane and productive,’ Jo suggested.

‘A corporate analogy would be that the ego is like the mail delivery boy.  The more complete you needs to read the mail.  But when ego becomes dominant it can be out of control,’ Simon cautioned.

‘No mind is beyond all attachment’ Sandy proposed.

‘Such awareness is absolute primal connection with the force of being’ Jo added.

‘However, a good-functioning ego is an important tool,’ she confirmed.  ‘The no-thingness of the Eastern perspective could be compared with the Benedictine flight from reality’.

‘Ego is your personality, which manifests as appropriate when it is less attached and more attuned to humility.

‘Attachment to God requires detachment,’ Alex noted.

‘As George Santayana put it, ‘Detachment (as a principle) presupposes attachment’,’ Lindsay confirmed.

‘A softer way to consider this would be the similar principle of earth nurturing growth,’ Sandy explained.

‘The Quaker spiritual principle of remaining open to possibility,’ would also apply in this respect, Simon proposed.     

 ‘Attachment to an outcome could still be possible, even though no goal is evident,’ Roger noted.

‘To have a goal, but not know the steps towards it,’ Pat clarified.

‘There seems to be an existential challenge in life to set goals.  Would it be useful if no goals were required ?’ Jo enquired.

Meanwhile, David considered ‘the secret’ in life was to figure out:  What do you really want ?’

Sandy asserted that ‘everything has a reason’.

While Jean proposed that ‘near-death experiences’ required ‘wider consciousness’, and therefore it was ‘difficult to cope’ with these.

Roger confirmed that ‘living in paradox is a daily experience of living in and out of awareness’.

This was a ‘physical and spiritual experience’ and ‘a personal thing’ for Steaphen.

Moreover, ‘growth’ was a vital element in this experience, through which eventually we would realise our place as ‘servants of others’.  For instance, people would often engage in ‘more compassionate behaviour after a near-death experience, according to Jo. 

Lindsay quoted Quine’s definition of paradox as a ‘ … contradiction between two [or more] associations for each of which there seem to be adequate grounds’ or ‘… a single unacceptable and often self-contradictory conclusion for which there are seemingly irresistible grounds’ (W V Quine in Fontana Modern Thought: 41) or which has ‘unacceptable or contradictory consequences’ (E P Northrop in Fontana: 626) [quoted in April 2005: 2]. 

Paradox constitutes a ‘greater reality than that which may appear to be evident from a constrained perspective,’ Lindsay proposed.

Ultimately, Lindsay completed his presentation quoting excerpts from his work Paradox – coping with complexity.

‘Telling the truth about the terrible struggle of the human soul is surely a very elementary part of the ethics of honesty’ (April 2005: 5 [1953: 142]).

‘Faith is vital in all this, along with a comprehensive sense of place – ‘a place to be’ and ‘a place to live’ ‘(13).

However, paradox did not presuppose conflict from Lindsay’s perspective.  Rather, paradox was the source of the ‘rich moral soil through which we are all grounded as universal citizens’, following Chesterton.

‘A man belongs to this world before he asks if it is nice to belong to it,’ Chesterton maintained (23 [Orthodoxy; 1908: 270]).

 ‘All sane men can see that sanity is some kind of equilibrium’ (29 [1908: 290]).

‘Vulnerability and fragility, rather than polarity and competitiveness, would be our touchstones … for Chesterton (33).

‘Correspondingly, personal will enables autonomy and agency’ which thereby serves to mediate rationality (34).

‘Ultimately … paradox is not about contra-distinction and/or contradiction, but rather ‘synthesis’ ‘(35).

References

Chesterton, Gilbert Keith:    Orthodoxy: 1908.

                Chesterton’s Stories, Essays and Poems
                Dent, London, 1953.

                The Man Who Was Thursday – A Nightmare
                Wordsworth Editions, London, 1995.
                First published in 1908.

Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought

            Alan Bullock, Oliver Stallybrass, Stephen Trombley (eds.) 
             Fontana, London, 1977;  pp. 41, 626-627.

            Quine, W V:  The Ways of Paradox, New York, 1966
            Entry for ‘Antinomy’, p. 41.

            Northrop, E P:  Riddles in Mathematics, London, 1945
            Entry for ‘Paradox’, pp. 626-627.

Chalmers Twentieth Century Dictionary, Edinburgh, 1977

        Entries for ‘Irony’ p.694;  ‘Paradox’ p.960;  ‘Parody’ p.966.
               

Mell, Lindsay  2005:        Paradox – coping with complexity
               
Academy of the Word
                ‘State of the World’ Forum
                Occasional Paper 2005/1
                Presented in April 2005
                Sydney, Australia.

Quotation from Black and White – February 14, 1903
       
Published in The Man Who Was Orthodox,
        Selections from the Uncollected Writings of G K Chesterton,
        A L Maycock (ed.), Dennis Dobson, London, 1963.