Paradox challenges the orthodox, but paradox is not achieved in thought, for paradox is about the ‘union of opposites’ and as Tom Chetwynd ©1982 correctly states in his Dictionary of Symbols Thorsons edition 1998 p314,
“The UNION of opposites cannot be achieved by the Thinking FUNCTION, or the Conscious Ego, which always stands opposite the Unconscious, where everything is reversed as in a  MIRROR. Paradox expresses the two sides of life and nature, which are double-sided, double-edged, both conscious and unconscious. These two sides can only be reconciled through will and action, when Conscious and unconscious work in unison, with the Ego related to the higher SELF. Paradox is despised by the intellect, but prized by the whole person. By holding both sides of truth in conscious opposition, paradox can become the agent of their union. It stays rather close to the feminine archetype of Life, rather than the masculine archetype of Logic. It has a value in expressing intuitions about the Future and in relating to the UNKNOWN.

Paradox was of particular importance to the ALCHEMISTS, who used it to describe their Philosopher’s Stone, the goal and product of their labour: Their work was to heal the SPLIT in consciousness first by clearly differentiating the opposites and then by expressing both sides in one breath.”

My whole life’s work is as a living paradox. My blogs bear witness to my ability to counsel across apparent divisions with a diagnostic method that can bring opposing sides together. My life journey, through almost impossible failure, change and survival is one of alchemy and spiritual attainment that intellects can find difficult to understand, that I have found difficult to make practical and relevant.

My book written in 1997 is from the place of the magister, another word for the Philosopher’s Stone mentioned by Chetwynd.

All of this becomes clear to me as a necessity of this work, to try to be of service, to be able to withstand the forces that range against me and vitalise those forces that are inclined to support.

My message of stuck-addiction© is I see now an effort to find a portal to be of service as a living agent of change, a catalyst to enable a resolution to apparently intractable problems, but that the intellectual opposition to my efforts is not imaginary.

I am being drawn to make another concentrated effort to deliver my abilities to the places where there is the possibility of success in areas of individual and group therapy as well as support for a wider systemic consultation process to be a catalyst for arbitration and innovation.

There can be some very interesting and passionate notions about the apparent difference between God the transcendent and God the immanent, so far as a person can experience states conducive to holding an actual notion about such matters at all.

Immanent is an easy word, it has a sense of pervading everything, of being inherent in all of life and capable therefore of being experienced.

Transcendent has a sense of being beyond, of going beyond the usual or inherently measurable or experiencable forces of conscious awareness.

Thus the ‘para’ normal is riven into the word transcendent.

Yet, the words ascend and descend are defining boundaries that set the points across which the word transcend cannot escape from, nor go beyond.

So, the word transcendent simply connects the highest and the lowest possibilities of mortal awareness, of Human consciousness.

That this function of connecting Heaven and Hell is seemingly paranormal when the normal is to suffer being divided and ruled, goes some way toward explaining the arguments around God’s transcendent and immanent singularity. However, for one who is granted the function of being so perfected inherently by God in this world, that their practice has made them perfect receptors of the infinite variabilities of the immanence of their life, then for them to deny the transcendence of God would be as impossible as their denying a sunrise across a morning mist.

The paradox then connects seemingly irreconcilable opposites that the orthodox can only argue to keep apart.

Thank you for reading this post.