You think she mean't

*paradox*?

Maybe she was just being playful in her choice of words.

According to some, most

*truth *can only be related in terms

of paradox... For instance:

*"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth *

*may very well be another profound truth." *

- Niels Bohr.

If what Niels Bohr is saying is accurate, and I believe it is, it is a contradiction and a door.

For many years the Law of contradiction and the "excluded middle" associated with Aristotle held supreme.

Law of excluded middle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
More recently the Law of the "Included Mddle" has been used in explaing quantom physics. Simone I believe is referring to this back in the 1930,s not by name but by experience. Eventually I believe, the relativity of "middle, will be used to explain much of what now appears as contradictions. The relativity of "middle" will be seen as the door.

Basarab Nicolescu : Transdisciplinarity and Complexity - Levels of Reality as Source of Indeterminacy
**2. The logic of the included middle**
Knowledge of the coexistence of the quantum world and the macrophysical world and the development of quantum physics has led, on the level of theory and scientific experiment, to the upheaval of what were formerly considered to be

*pairs of mutually exclusive contradictories* (A and non-A) : wave

*and* corpuscle, continuity

*and* discontinuity, separability

*and* nonseparability, local causality

*and* global causality, symmetry

*and* breaking of symmetry, reversibility

*and* irreversibility of time, etc.

The intellectual scandal provoked by quantum mechanics consists in the fact that the pairs of contradictories that it generates are actually mutually contradictory when they are analyzed through the interpretative filter of classical logic. This logic is founded on three axioms : 1.

*The axiom of identity *: A is A. 2.

*The axiom of non-contradiction *: A is not non-A. 3.

*The axiom of the excluded middle *: There exists no third term T which is at the same time A and non-A.

Under the assumption of the existence of a single level of Reality, the second and third axioms are obviously equivalent.

If one accepts the classical logic one immediately arrives at the conclusion that the pairs of contradictories advanced by quantum physics are mutually exclusive, because one cannot affirm the validity of a thing and its opposite at the same time : A

*and* non-A.

Since the definitive formulation of quantum mechanics around 1930 the founders of the new science have been acutely aware of the problem of formulating a new, "quantum logic." Subsequent to the work of Birkhoff and van Neumann a veritable flourishing of quantum logics was not long in coming

[5]. The aim of these new logics was to resolve the paradoxes which quantum mechanics had created and to attempt, to the extent possible, to arrive at a predictive power stronger than that afforded by classical logic.

Most quantum logics have modified the second axiom of classical logic — the axiom of non-contradiction — by introducing non-contradiction with several truth values in place of the binary pair (A, non-A). These multivalent logics, whose status with respect to their predictive power remains controversial, have not taken into account one other possibility : the modification of the third axiom — the axiom of the excluded middle.

History will credit Stéphane Lupasco with having shown that the

*logic of the included middle* is a true logic, formalizable and formalized, multivalent (with three values : A, non-A, and T) and non-contradictory

[6]. His philosophy, which takes quantum physics as its point of departure, has been marginalized by physicists and philosophers. Curiously, on the other hand, it has had a powerful albeit underground influence among psychologists, sociologists, artists, and historians of religions. Perhaps the absence of the notion of "levels of Reality" in his philosophy obscured its substance : many persons wrongly believed that Lupasco's logic violated the principle of non-contradiction.

Our understanding of the axiom of the included middle —

*there exists a third term T which is at the same time A and non-A *— is completely clarified once the notion of "levels of Reality" is introduced.

In order to obtain a clear image of the meaning of the included middle, we can represent the three terms of the new logic — A, non-A, and T — and the dynamics associated with them by a triangle in which one of the vertices is situated at one level of Reality and the two other vertices at another level of Reality. If one remains at a single level of Reality, all manifestation appears as a struggle between two contradictory elements (example : wave A and corpuscle non-A). The third dynamic, that of the T-state, is exercised at another level of Reality, where that which appears to be disunited (wave or corpuscle) is in fact united (quanton), and that which appears contradictory is perceived as non-contradictory.

It is the projection of T on one and the same level of Reality which produces the appearance of mutually exclusive, antagonistic pairs (A and non-A). A single level of Reality can only create antagonistic oppositions. It is inherently

*self-destructive* if it is completely separated from all the other levels of Reality. A third term, let us call it T0, which is situated on the same level of Reality as that of the opposites A and non-A, can not accomplish their reconciliation.

The T-term is the key in understanding indeterminacy : being situated on a different level of Reality than A and non-A, it necessarily induces an

*influence *of its own level of Reality upon its neighbouring and different level of Reality :

*the laws of a given level are not self-sufficient to describe the phenomena occuring at the respective level.*
The entire difference between a triad of the included middle and an Hegelian triad is clarified by consideration of the role of

*time*.

*In a triad of the included middle the three terms coexist at the same moment in time*. On the contrary, each of the three terms of the Hegelian triad succeeds the former in time. This is why the Hegelian triad is incapable of accomplishing the reconciliation of opposites, whereas the triad of the included middle is capable of it. In the logic of the included middle the opposites are rather

*contradictories* : the tension between contradictories builds a unity which includes and goes beyond the sum of the two terms. The Hegelian triad would never explain the nature of indeterminacy.

One also sees the great dangers of misunderstanding engendered by the common enough confusion made between the axiom of the excluded middle and the axiom of non-contradiction . The logic of the included middle is non-contradictory in the sense that the axiom of non-contradiction is thoroughly respected, a condition which enlarges the notions of "true" and "false" in such a way that the rules of logical implication no longer concerning two terms (A and non-A) but three terms (A, non-A and T), co-existing at the same moment in time. This is a formal logic, just as any other formal logic : its rules are derived by means of a relatively simple mathematical formalism.

One can see why the logic of the included middle is not simply a metaphor, like some kind of arbitrary ornament for classical logic, which would permit adventurous incursions into the domain of complexity.

*The logic of the included middle is the privileged logic of complexity,* privileged in the sense that it allows us to cross the different areas of knowledge in a coherent way, by enabling a new kind of simplicity. The logic of the included middle does not abolish the logic of the excluded middle : it only constrains its sphere of validity. The logic of the excluded middle is certainly valid for relatively simple situations. On the contrary, the logic of the excluded middle is harmful in complex, transdisciplinary cases. For me, the problem of indeterminacy is precisely belonging to this class of cases.