This thread is posted in epistemology but applies directly to the multitudes of presentations of his work, hence why a thread that 'repeats'. Considering he cycles under a number of female names promoting his work over the years I am directly calling him out as I believe his work to be self-defeating by its own standards. He can debate his foundations here or be silent.
His emphasis on contradiction fails in light of the dualistic counterpoint that paradox fuels rational endeavors by transforming them.
Why Paradox and Contradiction Should Serve as Rational Foundations
Post Tue Aug 12, 2025 11:06 pm
If contradiction and paradox are observed as rational, rational by nature of being a percieved ratio of thesis and antithesis from which a structured negation and/or synthesis occurs and with these things a transformation of perception, then the nature of contradiction and paradox being inherently "bad", which is generally the case in western thought, is less of a rational viewpoint and more of a value projection based upon an assumption of what conceptualization should be....and yet the evidence is ignored at the inevitability of paradox and contradiction within and through systems of thought at the detriment of accepting the obvious nature of truth.
By transformation of conception, by paradox/contradiction, reason becomes a fixed process where rational discourse is nothing other than the formation and dissolution of limits by which contextual truth is symbolically a "raft to cross the river of the psyche".