rattus rattus’ blog

This is about Stefan Böschen, because it is not. I know Stefan because I do not. You know, I am lying about him because I do. And, he does too.

It’s been my pleasure to meet Stefan Böschen at the conference on Future and Ignorance where he gave an interesting talk about politics of knowledge. Stefan is an adept of self-contradiction. Probably, we were naturally attracted by each other and therefore we found ourselves in a sunny morning session playing ping-pong with the paradox of hedonism. In other words, we were laughing our heads off.

At the conference’s concluding discussion, though, Stefan repeatedly said three words: Praise the paradox.

Sincerely. I smiled. This was the essence because it was not. Like when you pursue the paradox its magic is lost. The gospel’s message is the joy of singing.

Praise the paradox.

Because it is one. Stefan said he’d sing it, yet it’s no cant. His utterance is no praise for praise’ sake, no praise of praise. It’s a courageous expression of an insight. Seeing the paradox at the bottom of life’s heart. The frugal philosopher saying No to himself with a content smile. Playful like an innocent dog, the yet unnamed cynic.

Praise the paradox.

Bald words. Raising their voices against themselves, leaving us with bare bones of all of life’s choices. Naked ideas that cannot but provoke which is why they do not.
Says he who still questions their affordability. Still with a smile on his face.

Stefan’s praise of para-dox, this concept that infamously contra-dicts anything and everything within reach, me, you, him- and itself, denies the distinction of Good and Bad, right and wrong, knowledge and ignorance. Praise of paradox denies denial.

In the end, this is responsibility.

God, he was lucky nobody listened to him.
Well, nobody but a liar.

Have you ever tried to prove something indirectly? I am pretty sure you are doing it all day long. According to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia: Indirect Proof, it is as simple as the following:

If you have no water, you can’t make coffee.

This seems to be undoubtedly true to me, at least since adolescence. And it is because water is one of the essential ingredients for coffee.
Let us apply the nice rules of Indirect Proving to another statement that is true.

First the statement itself:
This statement is true.

Now, we assume that it is wrong (meaning “we have no water”). Then we will see if this leads to a contradiction (or something as unbearable as “being unable to make more coffee”).

If the statement is wrong, that is
“This statement is true” is wrong.
it follows that This statement is wrong. Because of this, saying the statement is wrong, it follows that The statement is true. But this contradicts our assumption.

Witty readers probably see that the proof did not precisely lead to a contradiction but to a paradox. Let me suggest that for a moment, we adopt this paradoxical situation here as being as futile as a contradiction.

Well, here is another example of an often heard, and certainly true statement right for you to try out what we have just learned:

I am saying the truth.

. . .