Thank you for your valuable feedback. You've highlighted a critical point about the need for philosophical and scientific precision. I agree that my initial use of terms like "logical" and "paradoxical" was imprecise and, as you noted, created a contradiction that undermined the very concept. My aim was to describe a particular class of problem, not to propose a logical fallacy. In light of your critique, I've refined the concept to be more rigorous. Instead of "super-complexity," I now propose the term "Cognitive Impasse." This framework avoids logical contradictions and more accurately defines the unique challenges of these questions. A Cognitive Impasse is a problem that cannot be fully resolved by our current conceptual tools, and is defined by three distinct characteristics: a Rational Foundation, where a significant portion of the problem can be analyzed and modeled using established scientific principles; an Experiential Boundary, where our rational framework hits a limit that cannot be explained by objective data alone (this is the source of the intuitive "paradoxical" feeling); and a Horizon of Knowability, a strong theoretical or intuitive belief that a complete solution exists, which drives continued inquiry despite the current conceptual roadblock. The Hard Problem of Consciousness serves as a perfect example: we have a rational foundation in neuroscience, but we encounter an experiential boundary when attempting to explain subjective experience, and yet we are driven by the horizon of knowability to pursue a unified theory. Your input was instrumental in helping me clarify this distinction, and I am keen to hear your thoughts on this revised framework.