Zeno's Paradox, Borges

We have dreamt the world...but in its architecture we have allowed tenuous and eternal crevices which tell us it is false.

Borges is writing here of the implications of logical paradoxes where reason betrays its connection to reality; irrefutable logic leading to conclusions contradicting the reality logic purports to reflect.
Borges doesn't quite seem to understand the implications of the paradox correctly here. If logic leads to falseness then the entire edifice of language as an instrument of truth falls apart. There can be no cracks in 'truth', else there is no truth. Nothing is left us which can be intelligently said, including 'the falseness of the edifice.' In other words, nihilistic chaos.

Borges mentions 'perhaps the most elegant of all' paradoxes is where William James denies that 14 minutes can pass, "as first seven minutes must pass, then three and a half minutes, then half this figure, and so on until the invisible end, through tenuous labyrinths of time."

So it is imagined that there is a transgression of truth here, as time- specifically fourteen minutes- most certainly does pass. The 'paradox' here is all rather embarrassing, however. Time passes at the rate of itself, and of course will effortlessly pass all demarcations within the segment being measured. James and Borges are simply confusing - and misusing - the organ of measurement for that which is being measured. All the 'paradox' amounts to is that if one were to count all the imaginable fractions between one whole number and another, this could and would literally take forever as the possible demarcations are infinite. This is the nature of numbers. It bears no relationship, however, to the passage of time. So all this 'paradox' amounts to is a meaningless misuse of logic or reason.

Earlier Borges mentions Zeno's Second Paradox, where Achilles runs ten times faster than a tortoise, giving it a start of ten metres. It proceeds: For every measurement the tortoise travels, Achilles travels ten. Achilles runs ten metres, the tortoise one; Achilles a metre, the tortoise ten centimetres; Achilles ten centimetres, the tortoise one; a centimetre to a millimetre, and so on to infinity without the tortoise ever being overtaken. There is always a gap that cannot be overcome. But in external reality, Achilles does overtake the tortoise, and so logic is seen to be inconsistent with reality.

Is this an intelligent question? Is it an intelligently framed mirror of reality? To measure comparative speed, it is useless simply to say that one is travelling ten times faster than another. It is essential to be specific, and the moment this scenario is specific about the distance travelled, then we find the paradox to fall apart. For if every second, or specific time segment, the tortoise travels one centimetre and Achilles travels ten, then Achilles will, by simple mathematics, overtake the tortoise. And of course the same will occur if the length travelled is a millimetre to ten, or any specific distance. Zeno however keeps changing the terms of reference, leaping from metres to centimetres and so on, with again the more or less identical statement being made as in James' example; ie that one can if one wishes keep splitting the numerical demarcations into smaller and smaller fragments. Again, all the 'paradox' amounts to is faulty reason; the unintelligent framework of a scenario mistakenly imagining the internal logic to refer to something beyond itself.

Borges' position is that of gnosticism or at least gnosticism in the negative sense where, I would say for reasons of timidity before frightening immense and messy reality, a negative value judgement is imposed on life, and this when closely examined, as in the examples, simply amounts to flawed reasoning.