The Mind of Pbradley
 

Is there a question Pbradley doesn't know the answer to? Probably. Do YOU have a question he doesn't know the answer to? Probably not. Will Pbradley answer most of your questions? I bet he'll take shots at serious ones and maybe bring along some farce, but I've been wrong before (Look what happened to Neptune).

So ask questions! And answer the poll that may or may not be related to the thread!

He's a cunt, fuck him.

Question:

Can 'paradox' be broken down? Does it rely on context? If it can't be broken down then is it some kind of thought block in discourse?

Does paradox have any value in discourse? Is it an end point to every conversation or argument?

Is this a rhetorical question in order to imply hypocrisy on my part?

People've got daggers for me.

Is there a chance the tracks could bend?

His combover devillock is, like, totally tricked out.

Not at all. Why would paradox as an end to discourse imply hypocrisy?

Law of non-contradiction, reductio ad absurdum, a paradox (being a contradiction) can indicate that an argument is faulty.

However not all paradoxes are logical contradictions so I believe you.

What's an example of a non logical paradox?

And why does contradiction indicate faulty argument? What if a contradiction is something more like a culdesac or final point? In other words, say the argument is like driving on the freeway. There's the vehicle and the road. Logic is the vehicle and thought is the road. Eventually the thought ends (major road work, exit, arriving at destination etc. or logic becomes compromised (car runs out of gas).

This is a very very fragile illustration.

But suppose a paradox arises in a conversation because an end was reached with AN argument, but it was the wrong end, car got off the wrong exit. So you get back on - eventually there's going to be an exit, a paradox or contradiction. No?

A contradiction often indicates that a premise of the argument is wrong (like taking a wrong turn, I suppose) which means that you need to make a u-turn and go back to where you erred and correct it. This can mean that the entire argument is false (if the premise was originally held) or is partial (if the premise was dialectically established over the course of the argument).

Paradoxes can also reveal the inaccuracy of intuition or reveal non-dualistic truths.

First part - Right. So an argument is a linear pathway of logic. Is it possible for an argument to end while keeping its structure intact?

Second part - Can you give me an example of the first part, 'paradox to reveal inaccuracy of intuition' ? As well as revealing non-dualistic truth?

Yeah, a good argument clearly leads to its conclusion. Unfortunately I'm too tired to consider logic any further so I guess that will have to do as a reply.

Well intuitively we see that a building doesn't move but it does in that it rest upon a planet that revolves around the Sun. Revealing non-dual truth is like a koan:

Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"

Um there is already a thread like this.

While the Red Queen and the White Knight are both mentioned in the song, the references are incorrect in detail. In Lewis Carroll's original text, the White Knight does not talk backward and it is the Queen of Hearts, not the Red Queen, who says "Off with her head!"

1) If you're untired in the future I'd like to revisit this. Others can join in if they want, but just try not to muddle my fragile illustration. Summary: Logic is a freeway, can the freeway ever end without breaking its structure? Could a paradox be an end point for the freeway? If not, then what comes together to make a conclusion? Anything? There has to be some change right? Does anyone know how to examine the process of stepping off the freeway / logic and into a conclusion?

2) a - good point. Something itches about it though, I'll have to think more.
b - Very interesting. I think that might be the starting point before the argument. Though I don't see how calling it a short staff opposes its reality. But that's probably ignorance here. Anyway, say that's right - that you can't call it a staff and you can't deny the fact - then there's still a third choice, do nothing but exist. So is that the point of synthesis?

Regardless, if one did neither deny or ignore but zenned it up with a few crates of aphid ridden buffalo medallions then doesn't the one immediately enter a new dualistic set?

i saw a pic of pbradley once.
he looks like a fucking sex stallion.

^^^ HUBBA HUBBA.

I'm not just a member of the peanutbutteradley fan club, I'm also it's president.

pbr for prezzzz.

he used to be fun but then he moved back in with his parents. he also needs a hug.

It is merely a mid-point to an endpoint.

bump