let’s do paradox 9/24/19

let’s do paradox for openers.

any position taken, 

can be adequately countered.

find a hundred topics in question

and a hundred counters can be brought to bare.

all I’m saying is,

let’s study the nature of the composition 

of paradoxes entertained.

there has to be unspoken containment

of references presented 

as identification presumed.

but there are hidden premises

that forge those viewpoints 

into a cognitive existence.

so if language is applied towards representation

then whatever that level of presentation

makes assumptions that are unacknowledged 

but somehow agreed upon to start with.

so that the frames of reference debated

have conceptual boundaries assumed.

there is a relevance premise in place.

it then becomes the battle of conclusions,

possibly evidential, 

certainly with emotional backing,

harvested from a range of appropriate information

and presented as relevant knowledge applied.

the basis of oratory exchange assumes

a relevant syntax of rules silently in place.

but the content relative to meaning presented 

and exchanged can vary greatly

as from what is said 

as to what that is understood to mean.

but paradox assumes a common ground of context

with an extreme variance of positions taken.

what if conclusions reached are worthless?

because the nature of presentation and exchange

falsifies the intendedness of the original curiosity 

and the subsequent scrutiny applied.

paradox was not to get purely answers

but to further the depth with which viewing could occur.

as how to witness having these positions defended

limits the in-depth potential 

of any deep search evolving.

for the value of paradox is not in a win

but more so in the delve

to get to a method of think

that goes beyond paradoxical positioning

and develops brain-styles that have penetrative insight

beyond the use of conclusions and defense.

in others words, to leave observation as a finality

and to enter into emersion.

to go beyond the address of topic with its insularity,

given that there is only objectivity as intended.

and that the style of presentation and subsequent defense

is useless in the nature of deep search.

all that is gained is still peripheral to the cause.

the ultimate goal from paradox is to get to 

and immerse into the fabric of cause 

with consciousness gained.

and since paradox is operational as a means,

then the initial stages are to enter into paradox

as an inverted framing 

of both what we know

but more importantly, also how we know.

for the want is for a brain style 

that gets us deeper insight

on the way to deeper energetic presence.

no answer we get comes to stand alone.

no conclusion has much of a life

if we are still in audience to it.

what we want is a wisdom of being

beyond the wisdom of our mind.

but we, as humans, have not found a mind style 

that is a perfect surrender of its method

in becoming true immersion in the beyond.

we seem to want to take what fails us,

with us,

as if proof comes to be justified.

that type of search is all circumventive

if all we get is further knowledge of the kind.

for as long as we address with paradox like this,

we have made no clear effort for ourselves

as entry into immersion from entry . . .