How do you say nothing? How do you explain silence? Can you paint no colors? What could illustrate the unknown? Can one lie?
What would a blogger blog about his inability to blog? The Man Who Couldn’t Blog likes to tell you in his blog but he can’t blog which is why he can and why his blog is such a marvelous blog about no blogging.
This sentence does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
— Robert Boeninger
A wonderful example of a not so obvious self-contradictory sentence. It is discussed in Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern by Douglas R. Hofstadter. Some more examples of paradoxical statements, a great illustration of troublesome self-reference, and why it simply is all about this and that may be found in the h2g2‘s entry on “self-reference“.
Even promoting Slavoj Zizek is probably bound to lead oneself into the realms of self-contradiction. What helps is that Zizek himself is refreshingly honest and open about being a liar, a human being, yet a “monster” — his words, too.
There is a wonderful documentary film about Slavoj Zizek called “Zizek!” by Astra Taylor, released 2005, which well illustrates Zizek’s playful attitude towards life’s paradoxes and otherwise. Lauded and recommended though rarely shown in cinemas.
I hate writing. … my whole economy of writing is in fact based on an obsessional ritual to avoid the actual act of writing.
— Slavoj Zizek, author of quite a number of books
Empfehlungen sind mit Vorsicht zu genießen. Beispielsweise mit der Vorsicht auf die Bühne des Akademietheaters, wo ich Neil LaBute’s “the shape of things” sehen und hören durfte — in einer wunderbaren Fassung von Igor Bauersima und gelungener deutscher Übersetzung von Jakob Kraut: das maß der dinge.
Es war ein Fehler! (Adam, eingestehend)
— Ja. Wie groß war der Fehler? (Evelyn)
Ein faszinierendes Spiel mit Dichotomien, in dem sich unversehens die Zuschauerinnen und Zuschauer wiederfinden, und nicht nur als ebensolche.
Frag nicht warum, wenn das Was vor dir steht. (Evelyn)
Damit ein Ding ein Ding wird, unterscheiden wir es von dem, was noch nicht das Ding ist, was aber doch schon Ding war. Und das Maß selbst nicht minder, das universelle Messer, mit dem wir Gut und Böse trennen, mit dem wir unsere geschätzten und dann lieb gewonnenen Dinge im Maß halten. Auch modellieren, und sei’s mit Schönheitsoperationen.
Es war kein Statement, das war Pornographie. (Jenny)
— Es war keine Pornographie, das war ein Statement. (Evelyn)
Argumente und Begründungen sind schnell gefunden, Hauptsache wir haben Unterscheidungen, an denen wir festhalten können. “Provozieren kann jeder” heißt es, aber “es muss Grenzen geben”. Eben. Die Grenzen der Grenzziehung.
Was ist Kunst? Was ist Wissen(schaft)? Was ist ein Experiment? Und wo sind die Grenzen? Schnell wird das Theaterstück selbst zum Experiment.
Wer war ich vor dem Experiment?
Wer bin ich jetzt? — Joachim Lux, im Programmheft
In Wien bietet sich am Montag, 6. März 2006 nochmal Gelegenheit zur wärmstens empfohlenen Vorsicht im Akademietheater um 20 Uhr: das maß der dinge. Oder:
Dann müssen wir uns wohl darauf einigen, dass wir uns nicht einigen. (Adam)
Heinz von Foerster shares with us a beautiful riddle about trust and truth. When I wrote about it my working title was “Trust not truth”. I was thinking this title forth and back because one of my inner voices kept yelling something like “You can’t say one shall not trust the truth if Heinz von Foerster clearly shows that truth is based on trust. I mean, what else could we do but trust the truth?
Trust not truth is nonsense. Put it in your Nonsense Box.”
I did see that “trust not truth” can be read in many ways, too. One being “trust — not truth”. Yet, I eventually changed the title to “The problem is not truth” as if this was any less nonsense. But, I could always say it’s a quote of a quote of a quote :-) That’s why.
So, the problem is trust — not truth.
And this is the truth.
What? You mean there is probably more to it? You mean trust not truth? — Oh, yes, you got me on this one ’cause I am a liar.
“No answer is an answer.” (rattus rattus : )
We can read this in many ways. Though, if one says “No.” I’d take it for an answer. Even if the question was: “Do you answer?”
Luckily, this simple paradox again and again leads to fruitful discussions:
Karen Kastenhofer once sent in a quote of some lines of e.e. cummings:
when god decided to invent
everything he took one
breath bigger than a circus tent
and everything beganwhen man determined to destroy
himself he picked the was
of shall and finding only why
smashed it into because
Karen then asked if anyone dares to answer.
My immediate answer was: No.
Karen replied (maybe wittily) with “O.K., this [answer] was unmistakable. Does anyone else dare to answer?”
Some did and some did not. Yet, every answer is no answer and no answer is an answer. Thus, I wrote a poem as an answer to Karen and e.e. cummings:
Don’t search for contradiction in others, you have found it already.
there him was in her mind full
fear, hope and reason threaded
together a place that was and
because of her will – bethere where no man can reach
shall truth be kept hidden
for only trust in the was
keeps what began at a living
life.
Or, as e.e. cummings is said to have written:
No need to “stand with your lover on the ending earth”.
When we just started to grow up, when we are yet a little child and everything around us is still big, huge, high, and tall, we have no idea what a horizon is. As time goes by, we get taller and taller and we overlook a lot more of what’s around us. As we start to actually see a horizon we get an idea of what it is and where it might be. Eventually we grow older and the horizon moves away, far and further, into the distance. So far, far away that … one day we find it again, in ourselves.
Whatever this means, it came up listening to “The Horizon Has Been Defeated” by Jack Johnson, to be found on his great album “on and on”.
If you accuse someone of accusing someone what exactly are you doing?
[For what it’s worth, this question sprang to my mind after seeing the mind-boggling film “Manderlay” by Lars von Trier.]
A few months ago, a close friend of mine pointed out to me that I did something wrong. Disgruntled, I objected: “I can’t believe you are blaming me!” — Well, maybe I shouldn’t have.
If I am blaming someone for blaming someone I might as well blame myself of blaming someone for blaming someone. And so on. We better stop here and now.
Epictetus said: “To accuse others for one’s own misfortunes is a sign of want of education.” Indeed, probably many are to agree. Do not accuse someone of accusing someone.
So, next time we hear of dictatorial governments that are intolerant of any opposition, when we hear of racial or religious intolerance, or worse, we shall be good and brave: We will tolerate intolerance. That’s the way we have been taught. Do not accuse others for your own misfortunes. Be not intolerant of intolerance.
How could we ever counter intolerance?
