Whooops on my statement that Tim created the word. What I should have clarified is that it seems Tim created a new meaning for the word. Looking it up in Merriam-Webster
Definition of paralogical
: containing paralogism : illogical
and so then looking up paralogism
: a fallacious argument
The way I believe Tim uses the word is to say that in cases where you have two things whereby if one is true, we would logically assume the other cannot be true... if it is paralogical (as Tim uses the word), each are true and both are true considering the other... co-existent opposites. His original example is based on the Niels Bohr wave/particle experiment conclusions.... saying it is both a wave and a particle and that both are true.
He then suggested we consider ourselves to be not only the obvious, in his case, Tim Freke and his one life but also that which he also identified to be which I prefer to point to with the metaphorical words - "the timeless, formless eternal one life."
What I got out of the presentation he made... well heck, here it is -
I also had assumed from reading all his last 6 or 8 books up to that point that he had to have a world view founded in "idealism." Yet it seems Tim's journey never settled on idealism and instead look at everything as either potential or fulfilled potential and the only thing that is fulfilled potential is what we believe we know as to the material realm in that "in the beginning" a hydrogen atom could not sing opera, much less experience individuated complex consciousness. And so Tim has concluded that be there something such as a soul, it must be created by a being that has reached an advanced stage of consciousness as a being that is from a species that has evolved from the big bang to now to the point it could produce such a being where their imaginal abilities have developed the ability to form the soul container whereby they would then transcend death as that same individuated being... which then could reincarnate in the future.
To simplify - there's "Big Mind" then there's the "me, Tim Freke (or Sam Hunter in my case) and then... perhaps, a soul could be birthed.
So think about this - three versions of being, one of which many here have probably done their own exploration of "that which words can only point to," Tim calls "Big Mind" (among other things) and his one physical life being the second thing and then the third thing, soul.
Big Mind
Tim Freke
The soul that either existed and reincarnated as Tim Freke or the soul that was birthed by Tim Freke
Three points of view - I have come to use the terms:
ME (for Big Me)
Me (for the soul which is experiencing perhaps infinite "lifetimes/realities, etc)
me (for Sam Hunter and his one life).
Where I go on a different track than Tim is that I am open minded that when I look at these three, ME, Me and me, I realize that each have their own POV (with the caveat that ME cannot have such as ME is a mystery filled with paradox... but I can explore all three in consideration of each other.
For example, I can theorize that consciousness is fundamental to all. BIG MIND indeed. I can then understand that BIG MIND has no ability to know itself without playing some sort of trick on itself. Example: it isolates a portion of itself that can then be tricked into thinking it is separate from itself so that it can consider that which it does not think is itself without ever realizing it is itself observing itself. All of this being impossible when we use logic within form yet by playing with the idea anyways, what I can see is that BIG MIND might trick itself from being "the ONE" into thinking it is many. Each of the many knows it is "the One" but what has now been introduced into the picture is "individuation." Yet also, physicality has not yet been needed and thus in this imaginal exploration, though "form" has been introduced (and individuation now exists), we have yet to experience birth and death like we do here in the material realm.
To my thinking and coming from the direction of BIG MIND, I have BIG MIND and "soul" (the word I use for an individuation of BIG MIND) and I don't need a big bang or 13 billion years to get to the point where a manifestation of life has developed to a point it can birth a soul. BUT, this is looking at it all from a direction that is emanating from BIG MIND (something it cannot do) but also is looking at it all from the realm of soul. And so certainly "soul" could experience its own form of continuum, yes? It may not do so in some form of unitized measurement system like we see time in our material realm as interpreted and scaled and measured by humans on a single planet at a point in theoretical time that is a blip compared to all the time we believe has passed before we could ever consider something like measurable time.
And so my point is that perhaps a soul may have three feet. One placed in BIG MIND, one placed in the realm of the soul and one placed in a life experience where that third foot is actually infinite third feet with each placed in a unique individuated experience in the material realm where there's birth and death.
All these words are meant to demonstrate that the version of Soul Story as told by Tim may very well be valid
if viewed from the POV of life in the material realm but that it is not the only valid story.
Bringing it all back to idealism versus materialism (as Bernardo Kastrup would define each to be), it seems so much more beneficial to be open minded to idealism because you can still have a complete appreciation and respect for the material realm, you can still enjoy it (as I mostly do) whereas the alternative is, at least for me, bleak.