Of course this is the subject from last time. As you have long known, my world is narrow as the world of an ant, and I tend to tread over again and again what is close to my heart. It’s just that in this case I wanted to distance my testimony by making false use of the Mimouna festival. I suspect that you do not sanctify this festival as was fitting (in the opinion of someone…), and so I wanted to shock you emotionally and thus deprive you of your judgment.
As usual, I failed at that too.

As for the matter itself, it seems to me that your sentence above (“In reality itself there is no paradox in the logical sense, neither in physical reality nor in spiritual reality.”) is itself paradoxical.
The reasoning: this sentence implies the assumption that it is possible to convey meaningful information about what you call “reality itself.” But those very things are what the sentence comes to deny.
Isn’t that so?

If you assume that, then this discussion too cannot be conducted. Even when one relates to reality itself, one does so in terms of our consciousness. We have nothing else. This, by the way, is Zeitlin’s criticism of Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena, which is itself entirely within phenomena.

You surely understand why I think your response, again, is not to the point.
I claimed that what you are saying is paradoxical and therefore problematic.
In response, you answer me that these are simply the rules of the game (“we have nothing else”).
Again and again I try to confront you with this statement and with its theoretical price, and you keep pointing to a real difficulty in my position, a difficulty that in my view is smaller than the one found in your own words.

In my view, rational discourse is a choice between two options, when sometimes both are problematic. In this case I get the impression that from the outset you avoid clarifying which option is more problematic, and therefore cling to the option you hold to (which in this case is not the correct one).

As I said, this strategy is characteristic דווקא of the “analytic” philosophy that you so strongly oppose: logic is everything, and therefore we have no ability to distinguish it from “reality itself” (as you put it). If everything is the same thing, we are left with nothing. At the very least, we are left without rational discourse.

As for Zeitlin. Well, I once lived on that street (I think number 21).
I don’t know what that gentleman wanted to say (to criticize the Kantian distinction between the thing-in-itself and phenomena, or perhaps to support it?), but I think it is right here to invoke Jacobi, who said the following sentence about Kant:

“You cannot enter Kant’s system without presupposing the thing-in-itself, and with that concept you cannot remain within the system.”

A statement that seems to me entirely true and sound.

All right, this is the stage where we part ways.

Parting is hard, bitter and searing,
Yet even so it bears philosophical surplus value.
When a person parts from his fellow, from “the tribe,”
He remembers that the stamp of reality is defect.

No, this is no game, only an ontological matter;
Our world is captive within boundaries as in a prison.
Or, if we put it in quasi-logical terms:
The roots of knowledge are paradox and wonder.

Therefore, when a person parts from another,
He may gain a tiny bit of wisdom.
There is no escaping this profound truth:
The logic of reality lies in its lack of logic.

Do not weep for the one who goes; this is no endless parting,
Like an Alterman meeting, do not raise lament for it either.
The striving for freedom from within is blessed,
But outside reason it is legend, like the Emerald City.

The logic of reality is not some different logic;
The metaphysical, like the physical, shelters beneath its wings.
Ontology itself is but a branch drawn from metaphysics,
So it is not a prison, but rather it flies off like a dream.

Therefore do not lift your eyes to the mountains,
Do not stray from logic, for it is your stronghold.
The whole earth is full of its glory and splendor,
And only visionaries and dreamers long to banish it.

Indeed, logic is a fortress for its masters;
When the fortress falls, hope is lost.
But an architectural danger is hidden in its walls:
If their thickness is not limited, the dweller within will perish.

Such is the erring path of the analytic thinker:
He will never cease building fortifications,
Until that sad and even critical point
When through overbuilding he destroys the inhabitants.

Thus there will dwell forever a castle of marble and onyx,
Its thick shell splendor and glory.
But ask: what is there at all underneath?
You will be answered: endless shells, until their hasty end.

His spirit has carried him bitterly to the regions of error,
For when we speak of walls, we are not dealing with essence.
Logic is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one,
And all that lies beyond it is full of its light and bounty.

Contradiction topples the fortress and its walls,
For without mortar its stones collapse.
But the area within is full of every synthetic good,
Ethical, philosophical, and aesthetic as well.

But if one wishes to thin the thickness of the wall,
The walls will fall and all within them will dissolve.
For where there is no wall, the people run wild,
And mixing the inside with the outside is an act of Balaam.

Again an analytic wolf in synthetic sheep’s clothing,
He will shower affection on “transcendental” principles,
But if only you press him: seriously? really?
He will answer you: from the boundaries of tautology there is no exit and none within it.

For this logician, he will add without delay,
Is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one,
And from that “sufficiency” he will seek a second story
From which to produce a whole world for himself.

And he will not at all see that this same “sufficiency”
Is from the outset subordinate to the level of necessity.
In any case, his syntheses will lack all force,
And his poem will weaken, fall silent, and fade.

Half a hero with a song of sharp wits,
But his quiver is loaded with mistaken arrows.
Every word is written in stone,
Except for the first line.

A synthetic wolf in analytic sheep’s clothing—
He sees it as a wolf in synthetic clothing.
For the wall is plainly analytic,
But the content within it is wholly synthetic.

Even if a person adopts an analytic methodology,
That does not refute his synthetic doctrine.
Let logic serve and wear its splendid ornament;
It is glory to all who seek and contemplate it.