Developmental Aspects of Opposites and Paradox

My contribution is to ask for a paradox to be accepted and tolerated and respected, and for it not to be resolved.D. W. WINNICOTT, Playing and Reality

As is common in the writings of Winnicott, an enigmatic statement is introduced with only minimal explanation, linking up deep and rich associations in the reader. Winnicott's assertion that the resolution of paradox entails a flight to split-off intellectual functioning initially struck me as a novel, and perhaps even radical statement. Yet the assertion has led me to a fuller appreciation of the pervasive fear of paradox (a fear not necessarily limited to the mentally ill) and to the preparation of this attempt to trace the development of the fear of paradox and the defensive split which attempts to diminish it.

Paradox is a statement or proposition seemingly self-contradictory or absurd, and yet explicable as containing a truth. We need to have little recourse to modern literature or existentialist philosophy to understand that the simultaneous perception of opposite statements, each of which is true yet mutually exclusive, produces anxiety. When faced with paradox, the ordinary impulse is towards its resolution. This can be accomplished in one of two ways. Either one contradictory proposition is explained away so that no opposition exists, or else an artificial synthesis is created out of the paradoxical opposition.

The tendency towards division into encapsulated opposites is a frequent feature of concept formation. A list of dualistic theoretical formulations which have become prominent would be virtually impossible to compile, but mind–body (Descartes), noumenon–phenomenon (Kant), Appolonian–Dionysian (Nietzsche), en soi–pour soi (Sartre) come to mind. The reader will be able readily to think of more examples. The antinomian dilemma is exemplified concretely in our language by antonyms, prepositions such as 'anti-' and 'un-', and by adverbs such as 'not'. This is illustrated in the way we diagram a senten