the mother of all paradoxes

With all due respect this is precisely the pedantic recipe one gets from folks who insist that philosophy is first and foremost about Analyzing Reality into existence conceptually, scholastically, academically with language----concocting a terminology so as to define Rationally and Logically the only possible thing Paradox Can Mean. It is as though the word paradox is transfigured into a Thing. As though it were a rock one could pull out of one's pockets and exclaim, "look everyone, I have Paradox here".

If that is important to you, fine. It is, however, not nearly as important to me. For me when folks speak of a paradox they are speaking of ways of looking at the world around them such that one can encompass a meaning that seems reasonable while at the same time seeming to be contradictory.

And embryology cannot proceed with scrambled eggs.

Whose code, however, yours? Are you the one who gets to define What A Paradox REALLY Is?

In that case I apologize, of course. And let me go on the record and state upfront that from now on any words I use in future posts will express only the manner in which I have come to understand their meaning existentially based, in turn, on all of the actual experiences I have had and how I have come to understand what those experiences infer about the world I live in. I am not God. I am not omnscient. I am a mere mortal with all that implies respecting what I can or cannot know about "reality" in the cosmological context of All There Is. I suspect that also applies to all the rest of us too.

Okay. Would you mind listing all of the other [important] terms that Professional Philosophers have embraced such that it is understood by all there is but one objective meaning. Does that include words like God and Freedom and Justice and Moral and Immoral and Good and Bad? Are there Right and Wrong emotional and psychological reactions? Is there an essential manner in which to grasp the nature of human identity or works of art? Was Wittgenstein being illogical when he conjectured that human language has nothing metaphysical to say about most things that pass for human social interactions? Is the human condition itself amenable to epistemologically sound arguments? Can it be defined objectively?

I'll bet Mr Dumpty would have a field day in the Bush Administration, right? After all, holding Don Rumsfeld responsible for what is now unfolding in Iraq really comes down to the precise philosophical meaning of the word Responsible, doesn't it? And until we know precisely What Responsibile Means we can't really know if anybody is responsible for anything at all, can we? After all, as Bill Clinton sugggested, what exactly IS "is"?

Did Professional Philosophers ever figure that out, by the way? ; )

O.K., Cav. I had scrambed eggs for breakfast, but my cholesterol-conscious wife insisted on some modifications. Instead of butter, cream and whole eggs, she used olive oil, for the pan, and whipped some "vegenaise" (a wonderful tasting mayonaise substitute--the only sub I like--made with heart friendly grapeseed oil and sold at WholeFoods and a local coop store) into eggs with some of the yolk removed, and, of course, snipped chives. It was delightful, and healthful. What do you think?