“What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immoveable object?”

A pointless question, from a physical perspective, but one of great interest to one who is fascinated by semantic logic. It is, of course, an impossibility-the existence of an unstoppable force precludes an immoveable object and vice versa. For this, it really only appears to be a paradox. In reality, it is more of a contradiction in terms (unlike a paradox it does not have a logical basis).

Contradictions are the impasse, at the moment. I have only too many wonderful and exciting ideas in my head, but none so great that they can be penned. Meaning, of course, I only think I have something to say.

I feel driven to express what I see as sociological and psychological paradigms-the very mechanism of thinking and unnoticed interpersonal dynamics. Then I come back to a slew of ever-more confusing questions which I have yet to answer with my current understandings. What point could there be in proposing, even satirizing, a viewpoint if I am still skeptical of whether or not such a viewpoint is tenable? Have I reached my current understandings through delusion, misinformation, or simple ignorance?

Do people honestly believe that there is sense behind the workings of this world, that “rules” exist? If so, should I be ridiculing them for claiming to possess something I might be bitterly covetous of?