Paradox Of Self-

Ohio: …So you’re saying that we aren’t really ourselves?

Pash: Well, I don’t know if I’m saying that…the me that is a part of us might be saying that.

Ohio: The collective us? Or You and Me?

Pash: Depends on the moment.

Ohio: So we are never the same collective Us’s that we are…just like we are never the singular I in question?

Pash: Good lord, You’ve got it.

Ohio: Does the idea of the divine complicate this?

Pash: Infinity is easily reduced to zero, so no.

Ohio: I thought it was the biggest number I thought it was?

Pash: No, you just thought that.

Ohio: How is that mathematically possible?

Pash: Infinity was never a number in the first place, so we’ve just disqualified it, hence nothing left. Or…infinitely disqualified it. Hell, qualification is left up to this particular interpretation. You could infinitely qualify it in defiance, nothing has changed.

Ohio: Ah, I get it….so it matters as much as you want it to when all is said and done.

Pash: Remember, metaphysics comes after.

Ohio: Like the shadow of an understanding…that sounds logical.

Pash: The mistake of logic is thinking everyone is fluent in it, but language is fluid, whether or not one actually understands it. One’s us is another’s I.

Ohio: Interpretable?

Pash: Self-delusion is the best interpreter.

Ohio: Is that the paradox of self?

Pash: It’s a faint shadow of it.

Ohio: Of who we are?

Pash: Yes, actually. A shadow is the best way to describe it.

Ohio: So…you need a starting point.

Pash: Yes, but the starting point is not you, I, or even us singularly.

Ohio: And here I was just starting to think I was getting it…

Pash: Don’t blame yourself, it’s really a collective misunderstanding.

Ohio: You think so?

Pash: I don’t, no.

(To be continued)