TABLE OF CONTENTS
In the Philosophy of Management there exist various essential problems of: (1) value, (2) Dialogue, (3) Paradox, (4) conflict resolution and prevention. Linking value, Paradox and Dialogue - gives a rise to significant coefficients of cultural being, for example: (1) communication in the common world, (2) mutual understanding, (3) articulation and expression, (4) multicultural works, co-operation and co-existence. In this work (and context) - these factors are considered to be the most significant aspects of this, being and preconditioning the existence of a common universe i.e. common world and hypothesis: a world without conflict.
It is therefore presumed - that Paradox, from ancient times, is a specific synthesis of contradictory sentence types. In this paper, a typology (taxonomy) is given for the Paradox of Communication as a result of language and metalanguage models and their use. Such a proposal for the use of metalanguage can be applied to the context of conflict resolution, both for the Philosophy of Management and the Philosophy of Language, mutual concepts that are at the same time intercultural and interdisciplinary in nature.
In meaning exactly this, in relation to indicated sources, a Dialogue proves to be a technique of detecting cliches of interhuman communication. Here, the cliches (of Dialogue) have both Existential and universal meaning (Parad. 1). Consequently, Dialogue as a common universe scheme in the construct of expression and communication is a technique enabling to link into the common interpretative realm, the mode of Articulation and conception of human fate (Parad. 2). While looking at all the antecedents it is noticeable that Dialogue-discourse also means (1) tragic fate; like that of Socrates (comp. Plato) or (2) tragi-comic like Molier which constitutes not merely the field of the linguistic, method, art philosophy but also - the field of expression of the Discourse with himself and others (Parad. 3); the field of expression of Tragi-comic human fate (Parad. 4). Such is the fate cast through a quest for both: A universal and personal formula of creative life (Parad. 5) in history and in contemporary existence.
The formula of the Dialogue unifying human articulation and fate of the individual - who initiates a conversation and is concurrently within its (polydimensional) structure of which he is both A subject and an object of being as well as cognition (Parad. 6), this technique - and such a formula (of Dialogue) is immensely complex.
A history of philosophical categories of Dialogue reflects this, perceiving such constructs as dimensions of Dialogue as a name of The dialogical common world (Parad. 7): being, cognition, communication (mutual understanding).
In result: there is polydimensionality of (1) Dialogue as a category, (2) Dialogue as a synthesis and (3) Dialogue as a Paradox and art of being and communication (Parad. 8).
Are there good directions on how to travel in the world of Paradox, and not to get lost in its entangled roads? It is known that; Paradox requires countless devices to receive the world and to convert the reception into a message. Alas, there is no universal formula on how to move within the passages of the Paradox world. There is no universal sign-post pointing to the direction of your journey. Instead, there are many different sign-posts, as well as many ways to organise and convert Paradoxical sets. Typology is one of the methods; it deals with languages and metalanguages according to the criterion of graduational generality levels.
In the set of sentences that do not conform to the law of non-contradiction, contradiction indicates existence of "n" number of logic - provided we embrace the principle of many planes for interpretation, and regard the planes for message interpretation as a set. Going thorough the phase of discovering new planes and languages (in the model of the Environment of Communication), we exercise this in proceeding from univocality to ambiguity. We learn about different phases, viewpoints, and linguistic projections.
Since there are at least two radically different approaches, there is room for intermediate zones of similarities and differences. There is a need to organise interpretation methods of such a multi-dimensional world, and its language. One can organise languages and Meta-languages according to their structure, functions, generality level, methods of crossing the levels of languages and Meta-languages, as well as according to the ways of "constructing" mutual interpretation zones, and intermediate zones.
What is a Meta-language? It is a language of a higher generality level, as compared to the objective language. We discover and solve Paradoxes due to the open resources of languages and Meta-languages.
And then we arrive at Meta-language i.e., language of a higher generality level, compared to the common language which is of the first generality level. The Paradoxical set constitutes a passage to knowledge on various logics, and languages. It goes down to the roots, as well as opens new horizons. Paradoxical set sentences (or even of thinking styles) is a kind of "converter", a link between univocal and Paradoxical thought.
In culture, Paradoxical thinking manifests itself in many varieties, such as pathologies, greatness, immaturity, marginality, methodological syntheticity suspending the rules of logic, and so on. Also doctors, linguists, logicians, mathematicians, and artists could call the new trend of "new communication" in the modern culture (refer to Bateson 1951, Watzlawick 1980), new discovering of "n" Meta-languages.
The Paradoxical set is a model of today's world, torn apart by the mechanism of contradictions. A Paradoxical set of sentences has at least two planes for interpretation. On these two levels, one can interpret the "contradictory set" as just another manifestation of a non-contradictory set. Then we speak about a set with mutually exclusive sentences which, nevertheless, complement each other. One of the simple examples of such dual sets is the Paradox of a "barber who shaves all men in his town". Does he shave himself too? The right answer depends on the interpretation of the set "all men in the given town" - whether the set includes the barber, or does not. We are in the field of Paradox, language, Meta-language.
Ambiguity of language is an established fact. It requires adequate tools. We need to employ a Hermeneutic approach (non-dogmatic tool) along with combined tools complementing the formal logic of Aristotle. A mutual interpretation of different visions of the world is also an instrument to comprehend ambiguity. Paradox gives yet another perspective on the world and language. In art, ambiguity stands for the expression of Paradoxes of human existence. People who communicate are separate, autonomous beings. Reducing the autonomy of "people and notions" may cause conflict. To impose one's vision of the world on someone else is subjugation.
Reduced ambiguity in language and logic, without co-ordination and mutual interpretation of Paradoxically joined contradictory aspects is not a way to understanding. Simplifications that are not Hermeneutic but those solely reducing meaning, do not bring us closer to "taming ambiguity". Instead, they bring about the onset of unsolvable arguments, and destruct the Communication Environment. Research on Paradox requires "extended", as well as a multi-dimensional model of logic. Such a model encourages bridging opposites; it allows for compromise, and strives to find a middle ground. It believes that ignoring someone's viewpoint equals negating the person. Negation is just a fear of solving the other person's secret, his/her Paradoxical difference, and yet, striking similarity to oneself, and to one's ego.
To sum up, that's how we would describe Paradox founded on contradiction - coming from the fact that in communicating, people are both different and similar. It is the Paradox of a "different ego" (refer to E. Husserl, Manuscripts on Paradox 1924-1938). People who communicate are both similar and different.
A Paradox is a natural model of a mechanism that "joins" different aspects of the world's contradictions. Advanced research centres in USA, Belgium, and Germany have made much headway with their study of the methodological (cognitive), and ontological (existentialist) character of Paradox.
The logic Paradox, discovered already by the ancients, is often called Communication Paradox in modern research. The complexity of this phenomenon is analysed in the context of compound studies called cultural anthropology, the search for universal structures of thought, ecology of mind, and so on. In Poland, limited research is a commonly known sore spot. Do we lack favourable conditions, or are we just lazy and ignorant in wishing to start research on Communication Paradoxes between people, as well as discovering and solving contradictions?
A banal example is a conversation between the author and his literary critics, editor, or publisher who passionately correct all stylistic mistakes in the text, tracking down any sign of troublesome originality. It also happens that the publisher generously corrects "mistakes in thought" of a person who simply thinks and writes in another paradigm of the same natural language. In this way, a habit of "fighting the otherness" hinders collaboration, and turns into eliminating innovations. Meanwhile, the distinctness of various stylistic expressions disappears. Uniformity takes over speech, writing, behaviour, thoughts, and actions.
Paradox neither destroys nor hides communication; we just have to notice its beautifully clear structure, hidden in the construction of the set, text, or behaviour. The Communication Paradox appears as a partial or universal manifestation of a communication process. The world's diversity consists of diversity in experiences, ways of thinking, actions, languages, and "passages" between languages.
Paradox may serve as a model of the world. However, it is not the world itself; it is rather a universal formula to describe various contradictions. Paradox is a multi-dimensional open model. It is a manifestation of irrational thought, a disorganised world, pathology, or human genius. An expert on structural anthropology would call Paradox an "operator" that connects diverse transformations. And indeed, he would be partially right.
Distinctness, and uniqueness of the style of expressions (expressions understood as words, and actions) comes from the chain of diverse experiences, creating an altered world view. Such expressions exist, and function in their own way in the context of elementary, universal, and unique values.
Diversity is a fact in the human world; a world of unique synthesis of culture and sciences, sign and silence. There is no arbitrary model to make uniform our diverse world and Paradox. From the anthropological point of view, Paradox is a symptom of richness in human nature, in biological and cultural heritage. We can also define Paradox as a sign of creativity, a world's irrationality, silence (absence of logical sense), as the "gap between contradictions", and as a "bridge" above the abyss.
Art and the philosophy of the absurd (another form of existentialism) claim to receive Paradoxes of the world - excluding rationality - by the means of intuition, feeling, silence, contact with infinity, and transcendentalism. Paradox may also be a form of artistic expressions, directed against the uniformity of thoughts, actions, speech, and communication. It speaks for abolishing logic if it does not exist. Absurd, nonsense, nothingness, and silence - all are symbols of Paradox. Unforeseen and unpredictable syntheses arise from the fact that different spheres, worlds, languages, cultures, and experiences intertwine. Language and expression of the Paradoxical unit are a combination of different styles, and different experiences.
It is not always possible to divide Paradox into its contradictory components. "It is not always possible to unite what has been tied". (Moreover, if one existentially combines contradictory expression styles, experiences, distinct visions of the world, what will be the result?). One should not make uniform the twists of different logics, languages, cultures, and values. Since Paradox is a part of art work, or science, it is not possible to eliminate Paradox without changing the work into something completely different. According to comparisons and history, it depends on the work itself whether Paradox is or is not a mistake. How to correct texts made up of Paradoxes? Is it possible at all?
Paradox leaves the hope that people will understand each other. It testifies that the multi-dimensional communication spectrum between people and contradictions is indeed possible. Is negation of Paradox tantamount to negation of nature and culture? Perhaps.
We know today that it would be possible to eliminate Paradox provided absolute logic existed. But such logic does not exist, at least not in our human perspectives. It is impossible to eliminate Paradox from human existence or from communication, though the desire to do so may be understandable.
There is Paradox between one's "Distinctness", and the desire to reach out to another person. We need to be positive though the positive attitude occurs as often as the negative one. Negation of the "otherness" is characteristic both for theoreticians and practitioners who are usually unwilling to include the "alien" element into the abiding and ruling paradigm of speech, thought, or action in a given society, profession, or artistic group. The models of anti-paradigmatic thinking are already present today.
And what about Poland? This is a tricky question. I feel safe writing on Paradox without defining its ethnic boundaries or language.
So, I can afford a few generalisations. Today, very few significant conferences on science and technology continue not without heated discussion. This is due to the dynamic development of thought and human culture. One could reach the conclusion that there are different paradigms of science. Contradiction crops up to be later mastered. This process consists of two types of paradigms - a Thomas Kuhn, in the past a well-known researcher of science development, remarked.
There is a paradigm of thought "in accordance with the so-called traditional logic (founded on the principle of non-contradiction), and a paradigm of "Communication Paradox" (Husserl 1924-1938). The latter model of thought and information exchange is present today everywhere. "Paradoxes the Liars", discovered by the ancients (including the "Paradox of the Barber") are today one of the easiest logic riddles. However, riddles of this type decide about the development of human thought, as K. Ajdukiewicz noted in already classical article "On Paradox" in 1931.
The contemporary thinker, Hans Georg Gadamer (Gadamer 1960) says that communication occurs due to misunderstandings. The physics theory of Newton enables, complements, and negates, though in a different aspect, Einstein's theory of relativity. Hegel says that historical development is driven by overcoming and resolving contradictions; his statement is echoed by Feuerbach, Marx, and others.
Hence, the notions of logic contradiction and non-contradiction complement each other as well. The question is whether the Paradigm of Paradox is just another master-key used to open every door. It may serve as such but not only.
Every multi-functional and ambiguous language has ways to undermine a text on the basis of its internal contradiction. In addition, it also has the ways to defend the very same text. Since early times, people highly valued the skill of public speaking, the art of negotiation in conflicts, as well as word tactics used to combat one's opponent. The use of ambiguity in natural language plays an enormous role in conversing, or in the so-called "word-battles". Practical domains, such as law (another skill of carrying disputes) come from the fact that there are many ways to perfect a game, fight, or a discussion. In a more general sense, the "philosophic word battles" are important for philosophy of language, biology, technology, linguistics, and other domains.
Reading about man from his actions and words has a long tradition. In other words, it is reading from his creativity and destruction, culture and barbarity, and so on. A conclusion is simple: man is a Paradoxical Being, both destructive and anti-destructive.
The Philosophy of Language looks for generalisations coming from observation and analysis of various cultural texts (in the broadest sense), for descriptions of current and historical events of communication in a given language, or between languages.
It is also worth mentioning the logic methodology, some aspects of which closely examine the principle of univocality in speech, along with the principle of direct and clear problem solving by YES or NO, excluding every argument with NO.
Some ways of thinking, or criticising opinions examine the unity of principles resolving conflicts. They hope to counteract the "pathological" ambiguity, as put by Prof. Tadeusz Kotarbiński (Kotarbiński 1929). This way of defending the "non-Paradoxical model", that is, by excluding contradictions and Paradoxes, includes all types of science methodologies aimed to maximally formalise texts. The so-called "exact sciences" headed by the informatic, employ quite successfully formalised simplifications. However, the method's shortcoming is its limitations.
So, formalisation, and its opposition complement each other. It is worth mentioning that the so-called Heisenberg's "principle of non-defined" was transplanted very quickly into the area of "non-defined" in logic, philosophy and methodology, both general and specific (M. Merleau-Ponty 1960, 1964, J. Litwin 1973, 1980, et al.). The issue of "unclear sets" (A. Zadeh 1975) directly connectes with logic calculus, as well as with non-formal methods of M. Nowakowska (1973, 1980), J. Ladriere (1957, 1984), and L. Mostowicz (1981, 1985, 1997). One could continue to name confrontations between traditional logic and "logic" that develops due to internal contradictions, continuously discovered in the imperturbable foundation of the "Aristotelian work".
Today, good manners and the art of social conversation do not encourage to "in a primitive manner" accuse your opponent of false statements, having discovered internal contradictions in his speech or deduction. Instead, contestants compete to discover a number of "bigger or smaller" Paradoxes, showing off with clever (and always short-lived) solutions.
Hence, the Paradigm of Paradox indicates exciting linguistic and methodological riddles. It presents the "frontiers", as well as other non-defined, and intertwined areas of human knowledge. It also encourages further research on the human world, on languages, and models describing pluralistic, diverse, and multi-functional entities.
Following my long comparative research (intercultural, interdisciplinary), I started to wonder why I cannot apply Paradox paradigms to Polish science or common speech in the cultural and geographic region between the Wisła and Odra. True, the roots of my childhood reach Wilia and Niemen. Other rivers of Europe have contributed to my "family" symbolism as well. What is a consequence?
I don't think that the inability to give Paradox "a chance" in Poland is due exclusively to a different way of life and thinking. The problem probably goes deeper than a different identity, inability or lack of flexibility.
Do we lack the dynamics of alternative Paradigms, authentic arguments, and the urge to discover and solve Paradoxes in Poland? The question is important if only in the historical sense. The modern world knows the unusual achievements of Poles in the discovery of Paradoxes. What is a future of Paradigm of Communication Paradox in Poland? What is a future of Dialogue and Paradox as an instrument of conflict prevention?
Corresponding answers could be found in every concrete Dialogue-situation. This situation causes a possibility of understanding one's self (self and mutual understanding) in the common world.
The possibility of an emotional understanding of the world as well as a rational one (through a total personality and a maximum of cultural factors) depends on the living Dialogue, on consciously guided processes of comparing and transforming relatively diverse voices on a common level. Dialogue in this context could be treated as a sign of a behaviour scheme situation and a sign of understanding technique. "Dialogue of voices" is also a Dialogue of signs, criteria of the mutual understanding and communication.
A Dialogue comprehended this way (coincidence of levels, voices, conditions, criteria and processes) manifests itself in many ways of thinking and behaving - in politics, everyday life, arts and philosophy.
A conclusion can be drawn therefore, that Dialogue is a contemporary fact deeply
embedded in tradition and determining future forecasting and that Live Dialogue is
an aspect of Paradox (polydimensional) in communication. Science and conscience of
Dialogue and Paradoxes - it is a field of constitution of an instrument of conflict
prevention. It is a intermediate sphere of Philosophy of Management and Philosophy of
Language.
The science of Dialogue and Paradoxes is the basis of a model in Philosophy of Management: (1) as a constitution of an intermediate sphere, (2) as a discovering of instruments for conflict prevention.
This study contains the following structure: Dialogue and Human Fate in the field of
Paradoxes; Languages, and Meta-languages; Ambiguity of Language Versus the Need of
Communication; Paradox Versus Inter-Disciplinary Research; Paradox Versus Thinking Styles;
Communication Paradoxes Versus Distinctness of The Other Person; Need to Communicate with
an "Alien"; Paradigm of Paradox, What Can It Be?; Let's Focus on the Philosophy
of Language; The Need for Conciseness Versus Formal and Non-Formal Methods; Paradox as an
Indicator of Interpersonal Communication Dynamics; Live Dialogue.
Ajdukiewicz, K. (1985), Pragmatical Logic, Warszawa: PWN.
Arystoteles (1831), Opera T. I. Metaphysic, ed. I. Bekker, Berlin.
Barret, E. (1995), Hypertext, MIT.
Bateson, G. et al. (1984), La nouvelle communicatione, Paris: Seuil.
Boudon, R. (1969), A quoi sert la notion de structure, Paris: Gallimard.
Davies, N. (1996), Europe. A History, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Derrida, J. (1967), De la grammatologie, Paris: Ed. de Minuit.
Derrida, J. (1972), Positions, Paris: PUF.
Durkheim, E. (1924), Sociologie et philosophie, Paris: PUF.
Eco, U. (1984), Semiotics and the philosophy of language, London: McMillan.
Gadamer, H.G. (1960), Wahrheit und Methode, Tübingen: Mohr.
Gadamer, H.G. (1968), Platos dialektische Ethik, Tübingen: Mohr.
Holenstein, E. (1984), Linguistik - Semiotik - Hermeneutik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Humboldt, W. v. (1968), Gesammelte Schriften, IV, Berlin: W. v. Gruyeter.
Husserl, E. (1929), Formale und transzendentale Logik. Versuch einer Kritik der logischen Vernunft, Halle: Niemeyer. Ed. 2, P. Janssen, Haag: Nijhoff, 1974.
Husserl, E. (1952), Ideen zu eneir reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Zweites Buch: Phänomenologische Untersuchungen zur Konstitution, ed. Marly Biemel. Ed. 1, 1913, Halle: Niemeyer.
Husserl, E. (1952), Ideen zu eneir reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologishen Philosophie. Drittes Buch: Die Phänomenologie und die Fundamente der Wissenschaften, ed. Marly Biemel, Haag: Nijhoff.
Husserl, E. (1962), Die Krisis der europaischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. Eine Einleitung in die phänomenologische Philosophie, Walter Biemel, Haag: Nijhoff.
Husserl, E. (1968), Briefe an Roman Ingarden. Mit Erläuterungen und Erinnerungen an Husserl, ed. Roman Ingarden, Den Haag: M. Nijhoff.
Husserl, E. (1980), Phantasie - Bildbewuststein - Erinnerung (1898-1925), ed. Edward Marbach 1980.
Ingarden, R. (1963), Z badań nad filozofią współczesną, Warszawa: PWN.
Ingarden, R. (1971), U podstaw teorii poznania, Warszawa: PWN.
Ingarden, R. (1972), Z teorii języka i filozoficznych podstaw logiki, Warszawa: PWN.
Ingarden, R. (1983), Man and Value, München, Wien: Philosophia Verlag.
Jakobson, R., Gadamer, H. G., Holenstein, E. (1984), Das Erbe Hegel II, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Kotarbiński, T. (1929), Elementy teorii poznania, logiki formalnej i metodologii nauk, Lwów: UL.
Kristeva, J. (1970), Le texte du roman, Paris: Seuil.
Kristeva, J. (1977), Polyloque, Paris: Seuil.
Ladriere, J (1957), Les limitations internes des formalismes (...), Louvain: E. Nauwelaerts.
Ladriere, J. (1984), L'articulation du sens, Paris: Cerf.
Litwin, J. (1973), Dylematy postępu i regresu, Warszawa: KiW.
Litwin, J. (1980), Horyzonty nieokreślenia i "Ja", Warszawa: IFiS-PWN.
Malewska-Mostowicz, L. (1981), Vers la phenomenologie semiotique, Semiotics 1982.
Malewska-Mostowicz, L. (1985), Les Paradoxes de la communication dans la philosophie de Husserl, Louvain-le-Neuve: UCL.
Malewska-Mostowicz, L. (1997), Teoria przekładu międzykulturowego, Warszawa: Laboratorium Przekładu Międzykulturowego (LIT).
Mayenowa, R. M. (1965), Poetyka i matematyka, Warszawa: PIW.
Mayenowa R. M. (1970), Sign - Language - Culture, Haag: Mouton.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1960), Signes, Paris: Gallimard.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964), La visible et l'invisible, Paris: Gallimard.
Nowak, L. (1989), On the Idealizational Structure of Economic Theories, "Erkenntnis" 1989, nr 30, Dortrecht: Klewer-Academic Publishers.
Nowak, L. (1998), Byt i myśl: u podstaw negatywnej metafizyki unitarnej, Poznań: Zysk i Ska.
Nowakowska, M. (1973), Language of Motivation and language of Action, Haag: Mouton.
Nowakowska, M. (1980), Nowe idee w naukach społecznych, Wrocław: Ossolineum-IFiS PAN.
Ossowska, M. (1985), Moral Norms, Warszawa: PWN.
Ossowski, St. (1966-1970), Dzieła, t. I-VI, Warszawa: PWN.
Platon (1960), Timaios, ed. w języku greckim i łacińskim, Oxford.
Ricoeur, P. (1983), Temps et récit, Tome I. Paris: Seuil.
Ricoeur, P. (1984), Temps et récit, Tome II. La configuration dens le récit. Paris: Seuil.
Ricoeur, P. (1986), Temps et récit, Tome III. Le temps raconté. Paris: Seuil.
Simon, J. (1971), Philosophie und linguistische Theorie, Berlin: W. v. Gruyeter.
Simon, J. (1978), Wahrheit und Freiheit, Berlin: W. v. Gruyeter.
Sławiński, J. (1976), ed. Słownik terminów literackich, Warszawa: PWN.
Szondi, P. (1965), Theorie des modernen Dramas (1880-1950), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Taminiaux, J. (1987), Recoupements, Bruxelles: Ousia.
Waldenfels, B. (1971), Das Zwischenreich des Dialogs, Haag: Nijhoff.
Watzlawick, P. et al. (1969), Menschliche Kommunikation, Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien, Bern: M. Huber.
Zadeh Lofti A. ed. (1975), Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications to Cognitive and Decision Processes, New York: Academic Press.
Copyright by Ludwika Malewska-Mostowicz - Laboratory of
Intercultural Translation
[Ostatnia modyfikacja: 18 czerwca 1999 r.]
Adres e-mail: lpm@kki.net.pl