Wisdom Notes on Philosophy

Resolving a Paradox

The Antinomies of Kant

The links in the table on the left take you to sub-headings on this page.

All traditional metaphysical paradoxes can be understood once consciousness is accepted to be a sign system.[¹]. The first step in understanding these paradoxes is to recognise that we are dealing with binary systems. A binary system is any system that has two axes to it.

Now consciousness can be analysed into two parts or “along two axes”: these being its present arrangement and its past structure. Present arrangement is dynamic (it is changeable) and past structure is static (it is difficult to change). I apply sign terminology to consciousness. Karma (or the determinism of past structure) represents the objective aspect of consciousness (the signified); the ego is  subjectivity or dynamic arrangement and represents the signifier.

Consciousness is the sum of the present and the past. So a short way of classifying consciousness is that it is  ego + karma.

By taking consciousness to be a sign system, then the opposed concepts needed to solve a paradox are associated with the two determinants of signifier and signified.

Four Paradoxes

Now the general meaning of relativity is that a subjective effect always goes hand in hand with an objective effect. Reality is a relative construction. Hence any subjectivity is always a relative subjectivity, and any objectivity is always a relative objectivity.[²]

In article 8 (Logic of Consciousness), I analysed binary relationships in order to derive the true nature of relativity. If X is a variable and A and B are the two possible choices in a binary system, then there are four ways that X can have value. This led me to the following result: relativity implies that in a binary relationship, X is neither A nor B.

This idea can be generalised. All philosophical statements of the form: X is neither A nor B (where A and B are the only apparent alternatives), indicate the presence of relativity. This means that object X cannot be defined completely either by its similarities to A or by its differences from B. The signifier indicates difference and the signified indicates similarity.

A sign has two aspects, the signifier and the signified. One aspect is defined by difference and the other one by similarity. In this way the totality of the sign cannot be reduced to either similarity or to difference. A sign is a relative construction. The signifier indicates difference and the signified indicates similarity. So another way of expressing relativity is that it holds together similarity with difference.
I apply this view to four standard paradoxes.

a). Identity and Difference
b). Free will and Determinism
c). Essence and Non-essence
d). Cause and Effect

Identity and Difference

Relativity holds together similarity with difference. Or, relativity means that identity is inseparable from difference.

The signifier = Becoming.
                        = difference.

The signified = Being.
                         = identity.

What is distinctive, identity or difference?  The answer is neither, because each is tied to the other. Identity is inseparable from difference because they are both part of the same relative consciousness.

John Blofield recounts an experience with an hallucinatory drug that verified for him several aspects of Buddhist doctrine.[³]. In particular he felt the truth that colours and forms, whilst differing from one another, yet were nevertheless the same even in their difference (Blofield, page 33). This is a fine example of the meaning of relativity: to be the same as others yet also to be different from those others.

Free will and Determinism

A standard problem in ethics is that of free will versus determinism. Does a person have free will or not?  The answer is that the will is neither free nor determined. Why? 

The signifier = Ego 
                        = free will. 

The signified = social values 
                        = determinism.

The use of free will within an ethical idealism has the function of removing weakness from the ego. But free will alone is inadequate for solving ethical issues. A psycho-analysis is also needed and it has the function of removing self-deception and determinism from the person’s sense of identity.

Essence and Non-essence

These ideas apply to the problem of essence. Does a person have an essence? Consider the baby’s task of creating his ego. [4]. He constructs it partly from the desires, attitudes and abilities that he incarnates with, and partly from the mother’s attitudes and beliefs (assuming that the mother is the main carer). The mother, as well as other significant adults, transfers her beliefs and values to the baby by the process of transference. If the baby constructed his ego solely from himself he would grow up to be a complete individual in any manner that he chose, and therefore have no pre-determined essence. If he constructed his ego solely from the parents’ influences he would become completely social, and thereby have an ordained essence (essence = his objective structure of fixed beliefs and fixed values). The conflict between individuality and transference (which is a social process) means that when the baby grows up he will be neither a complete individual nor completely social.

The signified mode (or karma) is the objective aspect of consciousness; it can be considered to be “essence”. Whereas the ego (the signifier) has no essence since it is pure subjectivity. Consciousness is neither completely essence nor completely non-essence.
Hence:

Consciousness as “existence” = past + present. 
                                                      = essence + non-essence.

The person has neither essence nor non-essence. So the concept of essence is a relative one. This is a variation of Sartre’s idea that existence comes before essence. All that a person has which is completely his own is his existence.

Cause and Effect

The concept of cause and effect can also give rise to an apparent paradox. Let’s see what happens when logical reasoning is used to analyse things into the categories of difference and identity. Is the relation between cause and effect a relation of difference or of identity?

If the effect is the same as the cause, then that effect is a duplication of the cause, since nothing new has been created. Therefore the idea of causality loses its meaning.

If the effect is different from the cause, then something new seems to appear; but where is the continuity?  How can one thing give rise to another thing which is different from it?  There is a disjunction between cause and effect.

In both cases, the idea of cause is problematic. However, the idea is problematic only because it is tacitly assumed that cause and effect should be a unitary phenomenon. When we make it a binary phenomenon, the paradox disappears. Cause is a relative objectivity and the effect is a relative subjectivity. Relativity ties cause and effect together.

If something is a relative phenomenon then it can never have a unitary reality. It always has to be binary in its nature. The whole of creation is a relative phenomenon. Hence there is nothing within creation that can have a unitary existence.

Limitations of Western Logic

Kant considered that the antinomies were natural contradictions in our reason. This view is false. The apparent contradictions arise from the attempt to apply non-relative logic to relative concepts.

Because modern analytical logic was “liberated” from the psychological ideas of nineteenth-century theorists such as John S. Mill, so it has to face the necessary consequences: it cannot analyse metaphysical and ontological issues. Non-relative logic (that is, analytical logic) can handle mathematics and technological requirements (such as computer software), but not meanings, nor values. Metaphysical and ontological issues require an integrated use of both philosophy and psychology if worthwhile answers are to be derived.

What is the difficulty with analytical logic?  Such logic is primarily based upon two operations:

either      X = A
or             X = not A

These operations cannot always be applied to relative propositions. To argue that two relative terms are identical is often fallacious, and to argue that two relative terms are different can be fallacious as well. They may be identical in the signifier but different in the signified, or vice versa. Conversely, if a logical argument leads to contradictory results then we are likely to be dealing with relative terms.

The world is a relative world. The world is a world of relationships. Therefore causal processes are relative processes. Since cause is relative then so is the effect. The problem for a logical analysis is that relative objects have no distinct boundaries – or no distinct beginning and no distinct end. Relative things are neither completely objective nor completely subjective.

What a relativistic argument implies is that from any particular perspective then either X = A or X is not = A. But as the perspective changes, so too does X.  Logical analysis cannot deal with terms that are changeable. As the term changes so it slips free from the confines of analytical logic.

All past philosophical ideas, all past philosophical solutions to problems, are subject to change and reformulation as the intellectual vocabulary develops. The emphasis needs to change from logical analysis to conceptual analysis.

If we want to make full use of the intellect, we need to recognise that it combines rationality with intuition. Intellectuality is a relative aspect of consciousness.

End Note

Primarily a paradox within a theory of reality is a dimensional riddle. A paradox occurs when a theory does not use enough dimensions or axes to explain adequately the issues at hand. The most common kind of paradox is what I call a binary paradox. This occurs when an experiment or theory gives two alternative results or predictions, each of which is equally real or possible. For example, does a beam of light exist as a stream of particles or is it a travelling wave?

The nature of a binary paradox is that it is a dimensional problem. A binary paradox requires two dimensions in order to explain it adequately, but it is treated in theory as being a one-dimensional issue. Each of the alternative results requires its own dimension, so that for a binary paradox one result uses one dimension whilst the other result uses the other dimension.

I am not referring to dimensions of time and space. These are simply the framework in which we encase reality. I am referring to the actual dimensions of reality itself.

When we attempt to understand a binary paradox, sooner or later we have to realise that the limitation to our understanding is produced by the way we think. We think in reductionist ways, and the reason for this is that it mirrors our use of one-dimensional thought.

[¹]. I first begin presenting sign systems in the article on Semiology. [1]

[²]. My analysis of relativity begins in the article The Ego and Relativity. [2]

[³]. See Blofield, John. The Tantric Mysticism of Tibet. Causeway Books, USA, 1974, or Allen and Unwin, 1970. [footnote, page 33 ]. [3]

[4]. I have three articles on the bonding process, beginning with Overview of Bonding. [4]

Copyright © 2026 Ian Heath
All Rights Reserved

The copyright is mine, and the articles are free to use. They can be reproduced
anywhere, so long as the source is acknowledged.