“The only consistancy in life is inconsistency.”

Or it might not be, check this out, about Sextus Empiricus, Roman skeptic:

He argued that to reach the state of ataraxia (approximately ‘peace of mind’), philosophers must first learn to ’suspend judgement’, that is, to believe to an equal degree any claim and its denial. Unlike the skeptics of Plato’s Academy, Pyrrhoneans did not think that nothing is knowable. The claim that nothing is knowable struck them as a sort of dogmatism. Instead, they suspended judgement about whether or not anything is knowable.

Those guys were grade A bastards and really on to something, I think.

My approach to life is “ataraxic” (if that’s even a proper use of the word) and it casts me as a hypocrite in the minds of others.

To which I tell them, “The only consistancy in life is inconsistency.” I think that’s Montaigne, paraphrased, but it’s also another way of saying “The only certainty is doubt” without having to invest your beliefs in the concept of doubt. It doesn’t sound very attractive to be a “doubter” but that’s exactly what I am. And I’m firm about it– “doubting” sounds wimpy and spineless but it’s actually a rigid stance to take.

In fact, some researchers have concluded that kids who are equipped to deal with ambiguity tend to be strong-willed and politically liberal:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conte...22231554&call_pageid=970599119419

Keep in mind, the study was conducted in Berkeley…

Assume I am faced with an apparently impossible dilemma. I will take for example a classic one: does the world exist beyond what I perceive, or do I fool myself into thinking a world where there is no world?

On one hand, I only know the world through my mind, which I know from experience is faulty and self-deceiving. Perhaps I have imagined Tim’s site out of whole cloth, if he did not exist, perhaps I have some deep-seated need to invent him to the degree that I imagine this very conversation and comment. Can I escape solipsism, which seems tantamount to nihilism?

On the other hand, the world does seem to have a fairly coherent structure that persists and acts according to certain rules. I do find it hard to believe of my friends that “no one is home” (although there are some people who do seem indistinguishable from p-zombies or robots!)

These two possibilities seem irreconcilable, and anyone who has taken them seriously will understand the dark places the conflict can lead your mind.

The possibilities cannot be argued out of. A common answer is “Well, you might as well assume that there is a world, because the alternative is so unappealing.” This just avoids the question. We can rephrase and refine the two prongs, but it will ultimately lead us in circles.

Does the world “in here” correspond to a world “out there”?

The source of the conflict, is, of course, the “I”. It is the boundary between the inner and outer worlds, which we have tried to connect by logic. Since logic cannot move either prong to a position which solves the problem, only the thinker can change. He can change how he relates to the inner and outer worlds. He describes them with the same language he always has, but he interprets the words very differently, in a way he could not have put into words or even imagined before.

“I” am as yet undecided as to whether the “I” can practically move itself in relation to the two prongs, or whether “outside intervention” (grace) is necessary.

I say right now that probably both alternatives are incorrect, that this is another double bind. I can hold that possibility intellectually, but cannot say that the conflict is resolved. If the god wills, the Gordian knot will be cut and the error will be seen.

The paradoxical figures of alchemy fulfill a similar function. Alchemists are continually exhorted to tell no one what they have found, for God alone has the right to reveal the secrets of God.

The Sages rejoice
From the bottom of their hearts;
But they keep it a close secret,
That no foolish man may know it.
Yet unto their Sons, in kindness of heart,
They partly reveal it in their writings;
And therefore let those who receive the gift
Enjoy it also in silence,
Since God would have it concealed.

First, it sounds like the ancient skeptics were keyed into the mystical tradition of “via paradoxis,” what we’ve referred to on this site and elsewhere as The Path of Radical Inquiry. Zen koans, Gnostic logia, Sufi parables, etc.– “puzzles” designed to get the learner to break free from the double-bind. Here’s one major benefit of the Via Paradoxis: each individual has to come up with his or her own solution for him or herself! There’s no way for someone to provide an answer for you, you have to provide your own answer. That’s why books on Zen koans that provide their “answers” can’t ever deliver enlightenment– they’re totally worthless!

Secondly, it reminds me of “Hope in a Time of Abandonment” by Jacques Ellul, in which he creates a double-bind by “proving” that true hope is possible in utterly hopeless situations– if there’s even the slightest possibility that the thing you’re hoping for will happen, then you can’t really be hoping for it, ’cause a part of you is still prepared to accept it. We’re currently in a state where we’re abandoned by God (inasmuch as God no longer talks to us like he talked to the prophets) and hope is only possible by recognizing this complete abandonment.

Finally, it reminds me of the concept of Divine Twinship. Since a double-bind is predicated on duality, breaking from the double-bind often necesitates transcending the duality. The ultimate double-binds are those in which we trap ourselves; they’re arguments between us and our “Divine Twins.”

Just some random thoughts floating around . . . .