And so it came to pass that when Mohandas K. Gandhi took the shortcut with his wife Kasturba to effect a whole civilizational upheaval in her upbringing he did not pause to think about the symbolism of Dakshinamurti because it never occured to him HIM BEING A HIM AS ALL THE OTHERS WHO HAVE COME AFTER HIM ARE HIMS BEING HIMS, that Dakshinamurti could be a WOMAN!
And so it also came to pass that he MOHANDAS K. GANDHI came to become our most revered statue in every town while Kasturba Gandhi who moulded him into a mahatma became a modelling clay in his hands.
Still the paradox of paradoxes is that it worked and they hit on the right button!
And so too with a russell's paradox
mathematical logical contradiction in set theory
discovered by Bertrand Russell.
If R is the set of all sets
which don't contain themselves, does R contain itself?
If it
does then it doesn't and vice versa.
The paradox stems from the acceptance of the following
axiom: If P(x) is a property then
x : P
is a set and an Axiom of Comprehension (actually an
axiom schema).
By applying it in the case where P is the
property "x is not an element of x", we generate the paradox,
i.e. something clearly false. Thus any theory built on this
axiom must be inconsistent.
In lambda-calculus Russell's Paradox can be formulated by
representing each set by its characteristic function - the
property which is true for members and false for non-members.
The set R becomes a function r which is the negation of its
argument applied to itself:
r = \ x . not (x x)
If we now apply r to itself,
r r = (\ x . not (x x)) (\ x . not (x x))
= not ((\ x . not (x x))(\ x . not (x x)))
= not (r r)
So if (r r) is true then it is false and vice versa.
An alternative formulation is: "if the barber of Seville is a
man who shaves all men in Seville who don't shave themselves,
and only those men, who shaves the barber?" This can be taken
simply as a proof that no such barber can exist whereas
seemingly obvious axioms of set theory suggest the existence
of the paradoxical set R.
Zermelo Fränkel set theory is one "solution" to this
paradox. Another, type theory, restricts sets to contain
only elements of a single type, (e.g. integers or sets of
integers) and no type is allowed to refer to itself so no set
can contain itself.
And so on there is no end to the sort of paradoxes that are without parallels!
And any amount of stealing of schimitars and passing them off as one's own cannot catch the glint of the sun because it is the nature of the symbology that IT IS ONE AND ONE ONLY!
A PARADOX WITHOUT A PARALLEL!
AND ANY SIMULACRA OF MUMMERY FLUMMERY CAN ONLY BE:
A PAINFUL PARODY IN THE POSTERIOR OF THE PASSING-OFF-AS-MINE-POSSEUR!
In the absence of FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR THE PARAM WITHOUT A PEER THERE CAN ONLY BE THE ETERNAL SYMBOLOGY OF
DAKSHINAMURTI!
