Bridging a paradox: opening a new space

Evoking Authenticity: through polyhedral global configuration of local paradoxes (Part #3)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Faced with a paradox, an individual has effectively to deal with the coexistence of two incommensurable world views that manifest as a form of dissonance. This dissonance may be stated in dry factual terms, as in the opening paragraph of this paper. Doing so ensures a distance from their experiential reality. In the case of the first example above, however, coming face to face with an impoverished child in the gutters of Calcutta, whilst carrying a wallet of money that could feed the child for a lifetime, is another matter. The paradox is rendered more acute when the gutter is outside the house of a person richer than most could every hope to be in the West. Variants of this situation exist in every country.

The individual in such situations is faced with a dynamic that can be handled in various ways -- none of which take away the nature of the paradox. Dysfunctionally this is best seen in the dynamics associated with substance abuse in a family setting (as notably explored by Transactional Analysis). But, potentially, it is the individual that can simultaneously attach meaningful value separately to both of the incompatible world views. It is the individual that may see both situations in a form of "value stereoscopy" through which a curious form of integrative aesthetic "perspective" is obtained. Failure to acquire such a "stereoscopic" view renders the individual vulnerable to being sucked uncontrollably into the chaotic dynamics to which he is then exposed.

The linear polar relation is bridged by the individual who introduces a third pole -- the awareness from which the polarity is experienced. The individual becomes the "bridge" through which the dissonance is reconciled -- but only by participating in that dissonance as in a piece of avant garde music. It is in this bridging that we are shifted out of linearity and binary thinking. We construct or constitute the bridge across the paradoxes (polarities) that we perceive.

Such issues have notably been explored from a theological perspective by John Robinson's analysis (Truth is Two-eyed, 1979). In arguing for a heterogeneity of epistemologies, Magoroh Maruyama (Paradigmatology and its Applications, 1974, p. 84) offers a beautiful metaphor in response to the (homogenistic) question "but which one is correct?" Maruyma's argument for "poly-ocular vision" calls for the use of different mind-sets together in order to transcend the limitations of each -- as in binocular vision. It is irrelevant to ask which eye has the "correct" picture and which the "wrong" one. For him: "Binocular vision works, not because two eyes see different sides of the same object, but because the differential between the two images enables the brain to compute the invisible dimension". The brain computes a third dimension which cannot be directly perceived. And if we live in a multidimensional space even more epistemological "eyes" are required. Reducing such vision to the parts in common provides much less than monocular vision. The co-presence of distinct perspectives ensures that from their differential an individual can envisage a more fundamental insight.

The difficulty with Maruyama's presentation however, is that he often appears to associate such "poly-ocular" vision with the heterogeneity characteristic of Japanese culture, although this may not be his intention. This would then preclude the use of a homogenistic epistemological "eye" in any such poly-ocular configuration. Each "eye" has its inherent limitations and strengths, and the homogenistic "eye" presumably has its own vital contribution to make to the process of encompassing (or responding to) the complexity of our collective condition. In terms of his metaphor, this paper is about the design of such poly-ocular configurations and how they may be comprehended through any given "eye". His work, with J O Harvey's (Experience, Structure and Adaptability, 1966), demonstrates that a minimum of four such "eyes" are required to describe the variety of perceptions of our collective reality (see also Four Complementary Languages Required for Global Governance, 1998).

For Vladimir Dimitrov and David Russell (The Fuzziness of Communication: a catalyst for seeking consensus, 1994):

Paradoxically, it is the ubiquitous fuzziness of language through which we clarify what is meaningful for us in every day communication. We communicate not to exchange accurate information, nor to look for a single comprehension of meaning, but to interact using the largest possible variety of fuzzy linguistic facets co-existing in parallel and complementing one another. The fuzziness of our 'languaging' (Maturana and Varela 1988) imposes complementarity and serves to foster our interactions. It makes categorical oppositions in human communication lose their strength and even dissolve in favour of a never completely finished process of production of meaning. [more]

A cautionary note in relation to this issue is provided by George Orwell's classic identification of "doublethink" in his novel Nineteen Eighty-four (1949; Plume, 2003). In Thomas Pynchon's introduction to a new edition of that novel (extracted in The road to 1984, Guardian 3 May 2003), describing society today:

...there has arisen a sort of schizophrenic manner of thinking in which words like 'democracy' can bear two irreconcilable meanings, and such things as concentration camps and mass deportation can be right and wrong simultaneously. We recognise this 'sort of schizophrenic manner of thinking' as a source for one of the great achievements of this novel, one which has entered the everyday language of political discourse -- the identification and analysis of doublethink.... doublethink is a form of mental discipline whose goal, desirable and necessary to all party members, is to be able to believe two contradictory truths at the same time. This is nothing new, of course. We all do it. In social psychology it has long been known as "cognitive dissonance". others like to call it "compartmentalisation". Some...have considered it evidence of genius...for American aphorist Yogi Berra it was coming to a fork in the road and taking it, for Schrödinger's cat, it was the quantum paradox of being alive and dead at the same time....We believe and doubt at the same time -- it seems a condition of political thought in a modern superstate to be permanently of at least two minds on most issues.

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]