the field of organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives , 27 (4), 287-298.
Bloodgood, J. M., & Chae, B. (2010). Organizational paradoxes: Dynamic shifting and integrative management. Management Decision , 48 (1), 85-104.
Bodwell, W., & Chermack, T. J. (2010). Organizational ambidexterity: Integrating deliberate and emergent strategy with scenario planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 77 (2), 193-202.
Clegg, S. R., da Cunha, J. V., & e Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human
Eklund, Matti. 2001. Supervaluationism, vagueifiers, and semantic overdetermination. Dialectica 55: 363-378.
Field, Hartry. 2003. The semantic paradoxes and the paradoxes of vagueness. In Liars and Heaps, New Essays on Paradox. Edited by J.C. Beall. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Field, Hartry. 2008. Saving Truth from Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fine, Kit. 1975. Vagueness, truth and logic. Synthese 30: 265-300.
Graff Fara, Delia. 2000. Shifting sands
small business performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 11(3), 221-229.
Krosnick, Jon A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 5 , 213-236.
Levinthal, Daniel, & March, James G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal , 14 (Special Issue), 95-112.
Lewis, Marianne W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review , 25 (4), 760-776.
Lubatkin, Michael H
Davey, Kevin. 2007. Aristotle, Zeno and the stadium paradox. History of Philosophy Quarterly 24: 127-148.
Evellin, François. 1893. Le mouvement et les partisans des indivisibles. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 1: 382-95.
Grünbaum, Adolf. 1968. Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes . London: Allen and Unwin.
Hugget, Nick. 2010. Zeno’s paradoxes. At: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Sta
Rovelli, Carlo. 2001. Quantum Spacetime: What Do We Know? In Philosophy Meets Physics at Planck Scale , ed. by C
Benardete, José A. 1964. Infinity: An Essay in Metaphysics . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bueno, Otávio. and Colyvan, Mark. 2003. Yablo’s paradox and referring to infinite objects. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81: 402-412.
Goldstein, Laurence. 2006. Fibonacci, Yablo, and the cassationist approach to paradox. Mind 115: 867-889.
Priest, Graham. 1997. Yablo’s paradox. Analysis 57: 236-42.
Priest, Graham. 1999. On a version of one of Zeno’s paradoxes. Analysis 59: 1-2.
Shackel, Nicholas. 2005. The form of the
Goran Davidovic, Violeta Iric-Cupic, Srdjan Milanov, Ivan Simic, Ziva Zivic and Mirjana Janicijevic-Petrovic
-Graw- Hill, 2001: pp 1386-8.
4. Rosengren A, Wallentin L, Simoons M, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors and clinical presentations in acute coronary syndromes. Heart. 2005; 91:1141-1147.
5. Nabel EG, Selwyn AP, Ganz P. Paradoxical narrowing of atherosclerotic coronary arteries induced by increases in heart rate. Circulation. 1990; 81:850-859.
6. Caguioa ES. When should resting heart rate be taken into account in the treatment of CAD? Medicographia. 2008; 30-3:255.
7. Paillard F, Tardif JC. Potential benefits
., S. Kolar, K. Lerman. Resource Allocation Games with Changing Resource Capacities. - In: Proc. of International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2003), 2003, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 145-152.
6. Bazzan, A. L. C., F. Klügl. Case Studies on the Braess Paradox: Simulating Route Recommendation and Learning in Abstract and Microscopic Models. - Transportation Research, Part C. Emerging Technologies, Vol. 13, 2005, No 4, pp. 299-319.
7. Claes, R., T. Holvoet, D. Weyns. A Decentralized Approach for
 Albers, C. J. (2015). Dutch research funding, gender bias, and Simpson’s paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (50), E6828-E6829
 Anderson, S. R., Auquier, A., Hauck, W. W., Oakes, D., Vandaele, W. & Weisberg, H. I. (2009). Statistical methods for comparative studies: techniques for bias reduction, John Wiley & Sons
 Bickel, P. J., Hammel, E. A. & O’Connell, J. W. (1975) Sex bias in graduate admissions: Data from Berkeley. Science, 187, 398-404
, A., Ensslin, H.K. & Rustad, K. (eds.). New York: Routledge.
Aristotle. (2006). Poetics . Transl. by Joe Sachs. Newburyport: Focus Publishing / R. Pullins Company.
Ashbery, J. (1980). Paradoxes and oxymorons . Available at: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/50986/paradoxes-and-oxymorons
Ashbery, J. (2008). Paradoxes and oxymorons animated . Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgcuF86sICQ
Atmanspacher, H. & Fach, W. (2005). Acategoriality as mental instability. In Journal of mind and behavior , 26, p. 181
The paper investigates two possible critical arguments following the pictorial turn. The first is formulated within ocularcentrism, the dominance of sight, and starts with the right to visibility as a general principle that governs today’s digital culture but gets twisted in special cases like the Auschwitz photos of the Shoa, the Abu Ghraib prison videos, or recently the website called Yolocaust. The second is conceived outside the visual culture and is meant to vindicate the other senses vis-à-vis the eyes. However, the argument is truncated here only to highlight the boomerang effect of the other senses: haptic vision. It is the case of visual perception when (a) there is a lack of things to see and (b) indeterminate synaesthesia: when vision intensifies the other senses in the embodied viewer. The two arguments converge upon a dialectic of the visible and the imaginable, which is formulated here as two paradoxes that the discussed examples transcend. By enforcing visibility at all costs where there is hardly anything recognizable to see, they lead to two diverging results. On the one hand, the meaning of “image” is extended toward the unimaginable, the traumatic experience, on the other hand, it is extended toward the invisible, the encounter with the radical Other.