Non-viability of a meta-stable space

Evoking Authenticity: through polyhedral global configuration of local paradoxes (Part #4)

---

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

---

The bridging place that the individual then occupies in this triangulation is an unstable, uncomfortable place. The experience is fundamentally jarring. It is this that augments the person's own level of stress. Such stress can of course be reduced by rationalization and denial, or simple indifference. The impoverished can be labelled disparagingly as "losers" or "trash". The focus can be placed on aspiring to the wealth of the rich seen as exemplars. This might be seen as a healthy pragmatic response for the individual -- and as realpolitik for a nation.

More intriguing is the context of questioning opened up by a paradox when facile rationalization is felt to be inadequate. It is a cognitive space in which the simpler realities no longer hold so well -- if at all. The departure of the young Buddha from his father's carefully constructed protective palace -- after encountering the suffering of others -- makes this point. The extensive use of koans in Zen makes it in another way.

The questioning space opened by a paradox, whilst exciting as a philosophical challenge full of promise, is not a stable one. There is no satisfactory rconciliation or resolution within the framework troubled by the paradox -- except through rationalization and denial. This may appear extremely viable in the short term -- as with the US use of binary thinking ("you are either with us or against us") -- but such paradoxes do not disappear. They might be seem to be eternally patient.