In a previous paper I defined paradox in the following manner: "Paradox" is a statement, or behavior, or any other action or possible action now known or yet to be discovered, which initially appears to be absurd, self-contradictory or otherwise inconsistent with know experience, but in reality contains a substratum of truth. This definition has been rightly and resoundingly criticized as being ostracized and parabolic.

One critic, a Mr. Hegel of Germany, wrote to suggest that an elaborate example may have faired my analysis better. I must agree. Another, one A. Schopenhauer, wrote wearily wondering if anything would have helped my paper. He too was correct. Finally, I. Kant wrote with a "word of warning," as he called it. His word of warning ran to twenty seven pages, and caused me to wear out several dictionaries.

My critics are correct, they're right, they're true and gracious. Holy, holy, holy are the critics. In the paper at hand, I will attempt to rectify their complaints. If I do not quote my sources directly, you, the reader, should know that they are at the back my mind. Indeed, they are greatly unconscious. In the following paper, then, I will meander my way into an exemplic example of paradox. Hence the title. (Aside: Mr. Nietzsche, in an intuitively perceptive paper wrote that, when one compares all the dictionaries which have been created, one cannot avoid the conclusion that certain industries not only allow, but expect and thrive on plagiarism. Mr. Nietzsche further stated that the plagiarism is not limited to the written word, but to all human thoughts and, if I followed his argument, the very fact of existence itself. I have mentioned the letter of this brilliant young man in order to excuse the necessary repetition between this paper and the previous one in mention.)

A true paradox cannot exist. It is impossible, and if one existed we mere mortals would never know it. Not only would we not know it, but we could not be introduced to it. And if we were introduced, we would not recognize it. Even if we recognized it, we could never speak with it at a social gathering. Finally, if we did speak with it at a social gathering our conversation would be limited to the assertion, "You do not exist." I can guarantee a paradox would not answer. If a paradox did answer, we would drop dead of fright or not recognize it. If we dropped dead of fright, the issue is concluded. If we did not drop dead of fright, we still would not recognize it. Even if we recognize it, we could never speak with it at social gathering. This is an example of an infinite regress. I have unconsciously stolen it from a letter to me from Mr. G.W.F. von Leigniz. Mr. Leigniz wrote that he accidentally plagiarized it from one (no first name) Aristotle (no last name). As Leigniz stated in his METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF NON-LINEAR CALCULUS, "We should be left wondering why we are talking to ourselves, or why we have drunk so much beverage. Neither of these questions are analytically appropriate." I agree with this critical mind.

There is, of course, a difference between a mental and a physical paradox. Mental paradoxes abound, as do mental patients. We must state, however, that mental paradoxes are not paradoxes at all. A paradox takes the logical form: A and ~A. Thus, for example (not my example) we may state "the hairy bald man," or "the married bachelor." We may state it, of course, because we can STATE any damn thing we please. Consider: "I WILL respect you in the morning!" "I DID put the check in the mail!" and "The obtuse triangle IS in a vegetative state!" and so on. What we have become habituated to calling mental paradoxes since at least four sentences ago are, in fact, physical movements of the lips, cheek, tongue, vocal chords, throat and teeth. I do not deny that these actions may be impinged upon by environmental or educational considerations. Such considerations will not impinge upon my argument.

A few examples ought to explain why physical paradoxes are so difficult to detect. The primary reason, you must remember, is because they do not exist. Nevertheless, if they did exist, they would be composed of two events. One event would be called A and the second event would be called not-A. Now, these two events must not be of two different natures. If they were of two different natures, then the occurrence of the ice cream truck coming down the road and the proximity of dinner would have to be called a paradox. Obviously these two simultaneous events are not paradoxical. In fact, they are quite natural and expected. Another example indicating that two events cannot not be dissimilar: the moon comes into view nearly every evening. Somewhere a child draws a picture of a rainbow at every hour of the day. We cannot say that the perception of the moon and the drawing of the rainbow are so dissimilar as to create a paradox. Nor can we say that ANY physical circumstances and ANY mental or creative occurrence are paradoxical. To do so would be to confused not-A with something entirely different: B. Not-A is not B (this may seem confusing if one thinks that ~A = ~B. In such a case, one is confusing two types of "not:" a logical "not" and a mental "knot." Perhaps pictorial-logicus will be beneficial:

          ~A is ~ ~B or ~A is ~(~~B).

My point is that ANY two physical or mental occurrences may occur together and they are not paradoxical. This is proven by the assertion that there are no paradoxes. CUM SUO IDEATO. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDDUM.

A paradox would have to be both (a) physical, and (b) impossible. If it is impossible, it cannot be physical; and if it were physical it would not be impossible. This may lead one to believe that if there were no paradoxes, then there were to occur a paradox, the fact that the paradox occurred would immediately make it not a paradox. To an extent this is true, but only to the extent that it is true that paradoxes are impossible. That which is impossible cannot be possible. If something were, at one and the same time, possible AND impossible, then that something would be a paradox. But it is impossible that something impossible be possible. AUT AMAT AUT ODIT MULIER.

Perhaps the distinction will be made clearer with a few examples. There is a certain fish, I do not know its Latin name -- SIT UT EST AUT NON SIT -- which, to eat its meals, turns itself inside out. The fish, we may say, exists as A and then as ~A. What the fish does never do is exist simultaneous as A and ~A. Therefore the fish is not a paradox. It is disgusting, and frequently has or gives indigestion, but it is not paradoxical.

Again, the sun and moon occasionally occur in the sky together, but this is not a paradox. This is so not only because they occur together in fact, but because our poor language describes and therefore expects the sun to be the orb of the day and the moon the orb of the night. Correct language dismisses all paradox. The sun is the orb of fire and the moon the orb of cheese. Correct knowledge precludes ignorance. Further ignorance and knowledge cannot occur together. Together they would be a paradox, but we mere mortals describe, and therefore expect, someone to be a wise person or an ignorant lout. There is no middle ground (which is the reason Leigniz rejected Aristotle's notion of the "golden mean" for the idea of the monad).

Other examples: Tadpoles turn to frogs, but there is no creature large or small which is a tadpole at one and the same time as it is a frog. Caterpillars turn to butterflies, but there is no creature, which are at one and the same time a caterpillar and a butterfly. It should be noted, however, that caterpillars neither provide food to parties nor are they pillars, nor are butterflies the results from churning the fatty part of milk, nor are they flies. The same logic should work in the case of the ugly duckling that becomes a swan. Those with the time may workout the logical proximities and redundancies.

Turns, twists, changes, developments, progressions, parallels, rings, warps, woofs, wraps, rotations, cycles, spins, flops, frills, gyrations, alterations, conversions and the other acrobatics which occur among, between, around and through people, times, places, and events are none of them paradoxes. I would think this would be understood from the mere fact that they occur. Nevertheless there is some question, and so the issue cannot be made to be allowed to drop.

I have frequently seen 400 plus pound Bolivian wrestlers take turns lifting one another over their heads. This has always struck me as odd, fantastic, fascinating and strange, but never paradoxical.

We each frequently note transitions. Transitions create time (or at least the measurement of time). Time is occasionally thought to be an illusion. If so, transitions are an illusion. If transitions are an illusion, every moment of our lives are an illusion. If our lives are an illusion, then it does not matter if we live or die. It DOES matter whether we live or die. Therefore time is real.

Nothing, which occurs in time, is unreal. Paradoxes are unreal. Therefore paradoxes do not occur in time. I have proven a minor point, and need to prove the major point. NON EST VIVERE, SED VALERE VITA. Nothing, which occurs in time, is unreal. Time is everywhere and in everything. Therefore nothing unreal is real. Paradoxes are unreal. Therefore paradoxes do not occur either in time or out of time.

Were a paradox ever to occur, a physical paradox, time would become redundant and explode upon itself. This issue has been dealt with by a number of philosophers and science fiction authors who have investigated the subject of time travel. I myself am planning an exposition of time travel. I do not believe time travels. I believe we do. Nevertheless, to state the problem as succinctly as possible, if we travel back in time, we risk redundancy. Suppose, for example, a certain person, call him P, lived into the 1990's and invented a cure for stupidity. The value to society is obvious.

Now suppose, as if by a reverse trajectory, a person from the 2250's traveled back to 1950 and accidentally landed his craft on the head of the younger person we have called P. Obviously, if P did not live into the 1990's and invented the cure for stupidity, the ability for time travel would be greatly restricted. P's death would, then, be the death of time travel. Yet if time travel were impossible, P need not have died in the manner in which he did. Therefore he lived into the 1990's, created his anti-stupidity potion, allowed time-study to progress and was ultimately killed forty years earlier.

One may notice a certain circularity in this hypothesis. I cannot deny that circularity is quite close to paradox. Yet circularity is not paradox. This is proven by the fact that we have one word for circularity, namely "circularity," and another for paradox, named "paradox." Were this ever to change, P would neither be born nor die, nor be reborn in fiction and philosophy, nor re-die in the codices and analyses which inevitably follow each.

One transition which I have frequently noted, which may be of interest to you, or may have been one of your experiences as well, comes quite close to this circularity and suggests how, if the terms of this paper is entire nonsense, paradox may occur. I offer both the facts and the critical commentary.

The facts: just before bedtime, the children are loud, boisterous, demanding, insistent, loveable, adorable, noisy, persistent, and tenacious and nuisances. In short, they are children. Once they are in bed, however, a holy silence takes over the house, possible much like the silence, which existed in Eden before human beings became possible. The children are sung into oblivion, and the parents return to their lives with both unattached joy and feelings of tenderness toward the sleeping ones.

The critical commentary: as the children grow older, the holy silence, the passivity soothing of nerves occurs earlier. This may be analogous to the noise of the world. The possibility exists that the children may become quiet before bedtime. This is very unlike the world. Nevertheless, if it were possible for the children to become adultlike before betimes, the circumstance would occur when both childish abandon and adult-like subtlety would occur at one and the same time. If we call the former A and the latter ~A, their occurrence together would create the following condition. A repentance would exist. The earth would explode. Everything in existence, except perhaps the redundancy, would be reduced to rubble. The rubble would itself be reduced to atomic particles, and reduced once more to quirks, and finally reduced to senselessness. Here is where the circularity comes into play. The very same conditions would be present which ultimately led to my children in the first place. The obvious deduction is that the noise would be back.

If a paradox would destroy our world, circularity would both abolish our knowledge of the paradox and continue creating the conditions, which created the paradox in the first place. This necessitates that I more clearly define what I mean by paradox.

In a previous paper I defined paradox in the following manner: "Paradox" is a statement, or behavior, or any other action or possible action now known or yet to be discovered, which initially appears to be absurd, self-contradictory or otherwise inconsistent with know experience, but in reality contains a substratum of truth. This definition has been rightly and resoundingly criticized as being ostracized and parabolic.

One critic, a Mr. Hegel of Germany, wrote to suggest that an elaborate example may have faired my analysis better. I must agree. ...

For the sake of those not familiar with Latin, the phrases used in this paper have been transcribed from the author's notes:

I had a good idea.

I'll take a quid for this demonstration.

Out, damn spot, out the door with you.

Sit or don't sit, it doesn't matter one way or the other to me.

Not only do I love Vivian, but I love Valerie, too.