• LAW OF THE PREDICTABLE PARADOX - OR VIRGIN BIRTH •
Figure/ground is an important concept to understand, but things like figure/ground and broken symmetry don’t really explain how our universe of model and non-model comes into being. In trying to answer this question, I found a need to back up one more logical step in my thinking. However upon doing so I immediately came face to face with an age old problem. Because my number line, and the model it represents, are attempting to provide a universe for tarot cards to describe, I eventually had to deal with the problem of how to begin a universe of infinite cycles!
Order, Chaos...Paradox!
The ‘ultimate pair’ creates our universe. However, because we have defined the non-universe as impossible, i.e. conceived by paradoxical criteria that contradict and cancel out, it remains (in theory and by analogy) an eternal formless ground in our quest for figure/ground foundations. While conversely the possible universe (existing theoretically and by analogy within the ground of the non-universe) becomes the figure we study with our model and non-model. The model represents everythingness, the non-model represents nothingness, the non-model is NEITHER!
This use of paradox to begin a universe may seem an uncomfortable state of affairs for some, but in trying to determine a possible origin to a possible universe, I have found that indeed quite a few theories of creation and universal apprehension (both philosophical and scientific) use, or encounter, paradox at some primary level. In fact in some philosophies, paradox - or ‘adherence to absurdity’ is considered a divinely inspired form of thought. In some cultures however, paradox is viewed as more of nuisance. But still, its ‘Ultimate’ influence seems inescapable. In trying to determine which way to go with paradox, I found myself constantly faced with a choice between two evils, i.e. formed finite models with annoying paradoxical limitations, or models rooted in paradox with no real finite form. Because of this, and the seemingly unavoidable contingency of paradox in all models that attempt a beginning to something as complex as a universe, it became apparent to me that indeed paradox might well be an intrinsic quality to any universe that should in fact be preserved and deliberately included in any and all cycles of infinity such as a universe. In other words, after studying numerous examples of paradoxical thinking, it eventually occurred to me that if an infinite universe demands a beginning that is beginningless - and as a result paradoxical, then perhaps what we are observing is that a paradoxical beginning is in fact a mandatory requirement of any cycle of infinity. But while this statement may appear to represent a bias toward models rooted in paradox and without form, it is my hope to transcend from this foundation and build a finite form that will also satisfy minds in search of tangibles.
This assumption of paradox as a beginning, is my second grand assumption of logic after that of opposites and cycles. And so, to formalize this idea I have decided to propose another observable law of nature that we can call the law of the predictable paradox. The law of the predictable paradox simply states that:
Law of Predictable Paradox: The only way to enter or begin a cycle of infinity is through paradox, or perhaps more accurately... Cycles of infinity are born from paradox because paradox represents that which is not possible, the natural opposite to a universe of possibilities drawn with infinite cylces.
In other words, I believe that if there is to be a beginning to our tarot universe it should be one that is predictably paradoxical. It should be that point on a cycle that ends before it starts. It should purposefully contradict itself, prove its own non-existence and politely exclude itself from the resulting universe or cycle of infinity. In short, it should be a beginning that faithfully represents, ‘that which is not possible’, the only possible origin for any 'possible' universe, and the only place a universe can go when it dies! In this way, we can see how the ‘ultimate pair’ of ‘non-universe’ and ‘universe’ become representations of a yin & yang - life & death cycle of ultimate magnitude. But hey!, that’s not all there is to this predictable paradox idea.
To my mind, what’s more important than the actual law of the predictable paradox, is the very notion of paradox as a legitimate force of nature and creation. Admittedly this is not an easy idea for a finite mind to accept, and might resemble to many, the abandonment of reason or adherence to absurdity employed by many religious and philosophical models. For many people, paradox is usually viewed as nothing more than a curiosity or nuisance, a limitation or failing of finite reason. To consider something so incomprehensible and unmanageable as this, as a ruling force in the universe, governing creation itself, seems ludicrous, and yet it seems to work. The reason it works is simple. The law of the predictable paradox just assumes the relationship of paradox, to the universe, to be similar to that of order and chaos in the law of opposites - binary.
In the science of chaos, the idea that chaos can actually influence order in a predictable fashion, is not always an easy idea to grasp. Likewise, in the law of the predictable paradox, the idea of paradox as a legitimate opposite to order and chaos, seems even more far-fetched, and yet at the same time (seemingly) appropriate, in a hierarchal sort of way (i.e. order, chaos - paradox). Thus we conclude that the law of the predictable paradox actually uses paradox as it is, with all its perplexities, as a beginningless beginning to infinity (the non-model or nothingness side of the universe), and then from there manifestation (the model or everythingness side of the universe) (i.e. paradox... chaos... order!).
The non-universe, being opposite the universe, is the foundation for paradox, it continues to be a paradox, and must always remain a paradox, holding its place opposite the universe. In other words, the universe is here only because the non-universe isn’t, so to find the non-universe, you must look where there is no universe! Thus, the universe, by its very existence, becomes the yang force to the excluded yin of the non-universe, which, from this point forward we will refer to as "the absentia" - an invented term being used to illustrate the necessary exclusion - or absence - of of the non-universe from each and every universe it opposes. By being the yang force to the excluded yin of the absentia, the universe becomes the broken symmetry of ‘possibilities’ over the stationary background of ‘impossibilities’, thereby maintaining the binary relationship, dictated by the law of opposites, within our first steps of creation. But exactly where, you are asking, are these first steps of creation going?.
• THE COSMIC CHICKEN OR THE COSMIC EGG •
To continue the evolution of the model into existence, lets develop further, this rather tenuous idea of a predictable paradox, into an idea of sequence and development. To do this we will use the governing characteristics of our logic so far, as a foundation to build upon. In doing so we will attempt to explain exactly where it is the model comes from and how, and in accomplishing that, create the first visible steps of creation, and the first elements of our finite model’s form.
Which Came First?
First, let’s review where we are. By starting our universe with an idea like paradox, we have established a beginning that faithfully represents ‘that which is not possible.’ Because of this you could say that, as a beginning, this predictable paradox idea resembles a big bang with no punch! And indeed it is. Of course by starting our universe with paradox, the beginningless beginning that results also carries with it the notion of contradictory objectives, which we observed in the law of opposites. As a result, we find that our beginningless beginning is actually capable of representing two concepts in one, thus allowing us to answer the all-important question that plagues so many theoretical models of universal creation - the beginningless beginning - or “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
 |
|
The only way for chicken and egg to be the same, at the same time is through paradox. Because paradox is a place where things are supposed to be impossible, at least from the perception we have living in our possible universe.
|
In other words by allowing such a condition of conflict to exist within our governing laws of logic, we find that our beginningless beginning actually gives birth to nothing more than its own non-existence! It of course does this by beginning...in a beginningless fashion! (beginninglessness being a legitimate beginning because it is paradoxical, contradictory and impossible...an impossible beginning, again, being a requirement of any possible universe that hopes to evolve).
Thus the beginningless beginning becomes an empty idea, from which all others may evolve, and into which all are absorbed. Thus, within the paradox of the non-universe, or what we are not calling the absentia, we find that concepts like ‘chicken’ and ‘egg’ are separate, but one, at the same time! Impossible yes, but completely acceptable in a realm of existence like the absentia where things are supposed to be impossible! Outside the absentia, these concepts become separate and distinguishable... the figure/ground conditions that govern both, changing from that of ‘merged into one’ (in the absentia/paradox world), to an opposite condition of ‘split into two’ (in the universe/binary world).
Thus we find that because ‘beginning’ and ‘beginninglessness’ are both concepts that precede all others, we can now consider the predictable paradox idea to be an infinite, and/or finite, point of precedent ‘singularity’ in our universal cycle of infinity. And, because this paradoxical point of singularity is capable of being both a chicken and an egg at the same time, we can naturally see how it makes any attempt to trace the origins of either a ‘chicken’ or an ‘egg’ to a beginning, impossible (without entering into ‘chicken and egg in same place’ paradox).
Therefore we can now see how entering and exiting this one point of paradoxical singularity on our cycle of infinity will invariably cause us to become an ultimate ‘neither’ to any binary relationship that may exist outside the absentia. In this way the law of paradox leads us right into the law of sequence, as this one pivotal point of singularity becomes a governing influence upon cycles of infinity and how they move from one state (chicken) to another (egg), and on again (to another chicken)...(and another egg).
If you choose to continue with this study, we will continue with this idea of a beginningless beginning and show how it breaks out into a path of sequence and development.
|
