I am not 100% sure what paradigm of paradox you ascribe to, but if it is the same as what has been argued elsewhere in this series of posts, it seems to be dialetheism, Honestly, I really do not know where this train of thought stems from, or the cognitive implications of it. My understanding of Weber's work places the word "paradox" within the paradigm of antinomy. The primary purpose of this paradigm of paradoxes is to highlight the fallacy of linguistic construction in its fragmentation of reality through categorization.

Wow. I don't think I understood any of that. Out of curiosity, what is your field of study? I think there is a part of me that has an innate allergy to any text laden with words like "dialetheism" and "antinomy", especially if they're not defined within the text. Then again, that attitude is exactly what you're criticizing in this comment, so maybe I'll Wikipedia those terms and see if I can hammer out a bit of an understanding.

I do have to admit that I'm in a field that uses long, complex terms of its own. These terms convey very specific information to someone else with the same education as me, and hardly any useful information to someone without that education. But I wouldn't get into a conversation with a stranger and use terms like 'hyperbilirubinemia' or 'myelomeningocele' without explaining them first.