Ion Paradoxes require the ability to differentiate. But paradoxically they tend to produce integration. Here is how it works: Humans gather information over time and as they do they create maps of their environment. Part of this process involves sorting of objects by similarity and difference. This is the rudimentary form of differentiation. As humans sort and remember their surroundings the process influences their awareness of reality and actually has a bearing on how the brain is structured. One study of kittens showed that if they were only shown a world of vertical lines they did not develop the ability to see horizontal lines and visa versa. As adult cats they had great difficulty negotiating in a world of both vertical and horizontal lines. This study showed that the early environment of an animal has a direct bearing on their adult perceptual abilities. Human brains also develop in response to the environment but unlike cat brains, human brains continue to develop throughout life. Carl Jung said something to the effect that we spend the first half of our life gathering information and experiences and the second half integrating it all. While this idea seem pleasing to both young and old, it is over simplified. Ion Paradoxes, it seems, point out the limits of our view of things. They become gnats inside our conceptual boxes. They do the work of making us uncomfortable, and provide the opportunity to see things in a bigger and more integrated way. This site exists to support and encourage that process so that as many people as desire to may have companions on the road to integration. But such a road is not easy, nor do many willingly seek it. But some do and have done at least since the time of Socrates. Socrates Socrates used questions and dialogue to refocus people on subjects like "the good life" and how we should live. The Socratic tradition focuses on what it mean to "know thyself" and live the "examined life." And it is in the Socratic dialogue that we find the roots of a way of living that depends on the power of the ion paradox. There has been an ongoing dialogue on some of these topics on this sites discussion board at Delphi.com. If you are interested in any of the topics mentioned here you are invited to share your experiences and ideas with others through this excellent forum. You can visit as a guest (just type guest in the member name and password fields of the log on screen) and read the discussions that have taken place or fill out the quick and easy registration screen and post your own questions, observations and insights. More on the process of going beyond. Soren's Choice example Soren Keikegard complained that prepositional truths are not sufficient to explain things that are paradoxical. For example: Soren saw that most people avoid real choice by relying on instinct or feeling. In other words, people don't stop to consider their actions, they just do what "feels" right. He did not say this was wrong, only that it needed to be balanced with what he called ethics, or more plainly, "choosing to choose." Once we become aware of the fact that there are choices, we are forced to decide what is best. Freedom, for Soren, lies in choosing to choose, rather than is actually choosing. He suggested that once a person chooses to choose, they MUST choose what is good. He assumes that people will pick what is good for them, over what is bad for them. (many argue with this assumption) So in this way we are free to choose, but actually not free to choose, because once we choose to choose, the choice can only be for the good. Thus we are free and determined. Did you follow that? that is the Paradox. Well, if you didn't follow it, don't worry, most people don't, and this reinforces his assertion that people don't choose to choose, because it requires too much work! If traditional explanations can not resolve certain apparent contradictions, there must be some other way. Dialectical Process That way became known as the Dialectical Way and usually involves paradox, crisis, and synthesis. It is a dialectical process, requiring the mind to hold two apparent contradictory ideas together and try to make sense of them. This attempt is usually uncomfortable and so often one or the other idea is rejected. An example of this is Jesus' teaching that the last shall be first. Most well meaning people read this teaching and find the suggestion uncomfortable. We are taught in western culture that the first are those individuals that are the smartest, fastest, most aggressive, strongest individuals in the competition and we are encouraged to strive to be all that we can be. Jesus say's this is not what is important. In order to live with Jesus' idea one of two things has to happen, either you reduce the saying to something that sounds similar or you make the jump to synthesis-speed. For example, "Being a good sport goes a lot further than being an aggressive bully" is not quite what Jesus said, but it feels better, you can live with it. But the point of Jesus' teaching is that we are not meant to feel better, we are meant to feel rankled, and that feeling is ment to drive us to contemplate why we want to be first and what the greater ramifications of that way of thinking lead to. Keikegard and the Neo-Reformed thinkers that came after him, recognized that getting on to real insight on such matters required living with the discomfort of the crisis of the unresolved paradox. Synthesis (a Hegalian idea tracing its roots back to Greek thought) is a sudden shift to a higher way of seeing. The Neo-Reformer's said it was the leap of faith, the sudden "ahha" when the lights go on and you see past the contradiction. It is like how the picture snaps into relief when you stare at those 3D puzzles. More to it than that What latter thinkers came to realize is that often, Synthesis is not even the point. Some things produce insight on an ongoing basis, precisely because they don't make sense in any logical way. Take for example the tension between Science and Religion. Both are correct in the way they view the world but at points they disagree. Many insights have come to people as a result of their unwillingness to give up either of these ways of looking at the world. This living with things unresolved is a radical and life giving way of living. . |
Ion Paradox |
Differentiation and Integration |
The dialectical process of insight |
Socrates and Kierkegaard contribute to the understanding of Ion Paradox |
Ion Paradoxes require the ability to differentiate. But paradoxically they tend to produce integration. Here is how it works: Humans gather information over time and as they do they create maps of their environment. Part of this process involves sorting of objects by similarity and difference. This is the rudimentary form of differentiation. As humans sort and remember their surroundings the process influences their awareness of reality and actually has a bearing on how the brain is structured. One study of kittens showed that if they were only shown a world of vertical lines they did not develop the ability to see horizontal lines and visa versa. As adult cats they had great difficulty negotiating in a world of both vertical and horizontal lines. This study showed that the early environment of an animal has a direct bearing on their adult perceptual abilities. Human brains also develop in response to the environment but unlike cat brains, human brains continue to develop throughout life. Carl Jung said something to the effect that we spend the first half of our life gathering information and experiences and the second half integrating it all. While this idea seem pleasing to both young and old, it is over simplified. Ion Paradoxes, it seems, point out the limits of our view of things. They become gnats inside our conceptual boxes. They do the work of making us uncomfortable, and provide the opportunity to see things in a bigger and more integrated way. This site exists to support and encourage that process so that as many people as desire to may have companions on the road to integration. But such a road is not easy, nor do many willingly seek it. But some do and have done at least since the time of Socrates. Socrates Socrates used questions and dialogue to refocus people on subjects like "the good life" and how we should live. The Socratic tradition focuses on what it mean to "know thyself" and live the "examined life." And it is in the Socratic dialogue that we find the roots of a way of living that depends on the power of the ion paradox. There has been an ongoing dialogue on some of these topics on this sites discussion board at Delphi.com. If you are interested in any of the topics mentioned here you are invited to share your experiences and ideas with others through this excellent forum. You can visit as a guest (just type guest in the member name and password fields of the log on screen) and read the discussions that have taken place or fill out the quick and easy registration screen and post your own questions, observations and insights. More on the process of going beyond. Soren's Choice example Soren Keikegard complained that prepositional truths are not sufficient to explain things that are paradoxical. For example: Soren saw that most people avoid real choice by relying on instinct or feeling. In other words, people don't stop to consider their actions, they just do what "feels" right. He did not say this was wrong, only that it needed to be balanced with what he called ethics, or more plainly, "choosing to choose." Once we become aware of the fact that there are choices, we are forced to decide what is best. Freedom, for Soren, lies in choosing to choose, rather than is actually choosing. He suggested that once a person chooses to choose, they MUST choose what is good. He assumes that people will pick what is good for them, over what is bad for them. (many argue with this assumption) So in this way we are free to choose, but actually not free to choose, because once we choose to choose, the choice can only be for the good. Thus we are free and determined. Did you follow that? that is the Paradox. Well, if you didn't follow it, don't worry, most people don't, and this reinforces his assertion that people don't choose to choose, because it requires too much work! If traditional explanations can not resolve certain apparent contradictions, there must be some other way. Dialectical Process That way became known as the Dialectical Way and usually involves paradox, crisis, and synthesis. It is a dialectical process, requiring the mind to hold two apparent contradictory ideas together and try to make sense of them. This attempt is usually uncomfortable and so often one or the other idea is rejected. An example of this is Jesus' teaching that the last shall be first. Most well meaning people read this teaching and find the suggestion uncomfortable. We are taught in western culture that the first are those individuals that are the smartest, fastest, most aggressive, strongest individuals in the competition and we are encouraged to strive to be all that we can be. Jesus say's this is not what is important. In order to live with Jesus' idea one of two things has to happen, either you reduce the saying to something that sounds similar or you make the jump to synthesis-speed. For example, "Being a good sport goes a lot further than being an aggressive bully" is not quite what Jesus said, but it feels better, you can live with it. But the point of Jesus' teaching is that we are not meant to feel better, we are meant to feel rankled, and that feeling is ment to drive us to contemplate why we want to be first and what the greater ramifications of that way of thinking lead to. Keikegard and the Neo-Reformed thinkers that came after him, recognized that getting on to real insight on such matters required living with the discomfort of the crisis of the unresolved paradox. Synthesis (a Hegalian idea tracing its roots back to Greek thought) is a sudden shift to a higher way of seeing. The Neo-Reformer's said it was the leap of faith, the sudden "ahha" when the lights go on and you see past the contradiction. It is like how the picture snaps into relief when you stare at those 3D puzzles. More to it than that What latter thinkers came to realize is that often, Synthesis is not even the point. Some things produce insight on an ongoing basis, precisely because they don't make sense in any logical way. Take for example the tension between Science and Religion. Both are correct in the way they view the world but at points they disagree. Many insights have come to people as a result of their unwillingness to give up either of these ways of looking at the world. This living with things unresolved is a radical and life giving way of living. . |
