Ambiguity & Anomaly
Based on Koepping’s (1985) discussion of paradox, I would describe a paradox as two phenomena that appear to contradict one another, yet can both be true at the same time. To observe a paradox is to recognize this contradiction and accept that it exists, whereas to resolve it is to reduce the tension, for example by choosing one side or explaining the other away. Drawing on my own experiences, I find that we as humans are often inclined toward the latter. I suspect this is connected to the way our minds tend to think in linear and categorical terms, while reality itself is more complex, contradictory, and resistant to such organization. Against this background, I am uncertain whether a paradox can truly be resolved, at least without something being lost in the process.
As a Lokean, I hold, in theory, a strong belief in the value of embracing uncertainty and discomfort, of engaging with friction and challenge as a means of growth. When I articulate these ideas, including in previous assignments in this course, they seem reasonable and even desirable as guiding principles.
However, when I am actually faced with such situations in my own life, they do not feel nearly as empowering. I am currently writing my master’s thesis, and meetings with my supervisor are in many ways a clear example of the ideal I claim to practice: receiving feedback and criticism in order to improve my work and develop in my role as a researcher. Yet I experience significant psychological discomfort before each of these meetings. I feel anxious, uneasy, and would much rather avoid them altogether.
Here, two truths stand in tension with one another: my ideal and how it actually feels in practice. My initial, almost automatic response when I began reflecting on this was: “How can I apply my Lokean perspective in order to remove this discomfort?” – in other words, an attempt to resolve the paradox. Over time, however, I have come to experience that Loki points me toward something else: not how to eliminate the contradiction, but how to remain within it. Rather than trying to make the discomfort meaningful or diminish it, the task becomes to notice it, acknowledge it, and yet not withdraw from it. I have found that when I relate to the situation in this way, the resistance itself does not disappear, but my response to that resistance shifts. The discomfort remains, but the anxiety surrounding it becomes less dominant.
In light of this, Loki’s function as one who reveals paradoxes rather than resolves them becomes particularly meaningful within my practice. It is not through eliminating contradictions that I experience growth, but through becoming more aware of them and of how I relate to them. It is also through these recurring lived experiences – rather than through theoretical reflection alone – that I have arrived at the conclusions presented here.
Sources
Koepping, K.-P. (1985) ‘Absurdity and Hidden Truth – Cunning Intelligence and Grotesque Body Images as Manifestation of the Trickster’, History of Religions, 24(3), pp. 191–214.