Bri looked at me, discovering where I had been going with my line oflogic. She said, “So you consider yoga vinyasa to be a kinetic chain of an infinite number of asana ” I replied that I considered vinyasa to be a critical step in that direction because before movement can hold flow, it must first have breath synchronously integrated. Movement from point B to point A has an infinite number of points in between. In order to travel the distance between the two original points, we must travel half-way, from D to C. And to travel that new distance, we must go half of that (from point F to point E), and half of that, ad infinitum in digression. The paradox is that we will never get to the second point because of the infinite number of places we must be in between to travel from the first point.

Bri chuckled at the silliness of such a logic problem because we obviously move all the time and have no problem getting from point A to point B. I told her she had solved one ofZeno’s paradoxes by practical sense, but I asked her to explain why it was so. She said that we do not abide at anyone of the points in between point A and point B. Rather, we just move through them. Zeno’s paradoxes are a set of paradoxes devised by Zeno of Elea to support Parmenides’ doctrine that “all is one” and that contrary to the evidence of our senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion. Zeno’s arguments are perhaps the first examples of a method of proof called reductio ad absurdum, also known as proof by contradiction. They are also credited as a source of the dialectic method used by Socrates (and used in the presentation of the author’s research impetus).



Leave a Reply

+ 27 = 37