The larger content of what I'm researching cannot be classified 
under any specific field. It cannot even be said that I am 
studying "generality" because I am also studying "specificity".
It cannot be called philosophy or science for the same reason.

  Mostly though, it is based on understanding information and  
how it relates to communications, measurement and interpretation.

Paradoxes are resolvable; otherwise we'd all be as insane as HAL.
Sometimes we resolve them by simply not thinking about them.
Other times we make toys or art out of them like optical illusions.
Other times we make humour out of them in terms of puns.

A random dot stereogram is a pun of points. A paradox that
presents an actual usefulness. That's what quantum physics
and quantum computers are about as well; the exploitation of
a paradox; in this case the wave-particle duality.

It is possible to comprehend paradoxes (dualisms) in more than
their amazing, unnerving or humourous aspects. Some religions
call this comprehension 'enlightenment' or 'non-distinguishment'.
(quantum theory creates the concept of the "indistinguishable particle"
to get them through the practical problem of the wave-particle dualism)

That's why Zen is so full of those aweful koans to help train your
mind to comprehend a paradox as you would a random dot stereogram.
Not everyone can do it the first time without practise nor even
later without some effort; to see both the forest for the trees,
to see the world in a grain of sand, to be a Big Ender and a 
Little Ender at the same time,... 

Photographers are occasionally grasping for "depth of focus". We
can think the same way when we hear someone say something and
exclaim: "Gee, that was deep !"; meaning there were alot of 
inter-related interpretations contained in a pithy statement.

The same thing happens in stereograms when we suddenly see that
"deepness" of 3d. If we "think" logically about it too hard, the whole
thing collapses like a quantum wavefunction because we loose
the required analogical inter-relationships, under logic.

Overdone, this analogizing leads to many mental illnesses like 
conspiracy theories, paranoias, phonesthesia and various neuroses; 
and even pathelogical effects like synethesia. But when controlled,
analogizing is the imagination and creativity every good theorist
can exploit and relate back to the "real" and "tangible" world.
Overdone, reductionism also leads to many mental and physiological
illnesses. Rorschach and other tests are designed to reveal these
entangled mental states.

The following fields are relevant but not encompassing:

   Systems Theory
   Information Theory
   Measurement Theory
   Communications Theory
   Computer Science
   Quantum and Relativistic Physics
   Chaos Theory
   Memetic algoithms  
   Comparative Mythology

The more key topics are:   

   non-distinguishment and distinguishment 
   interference and aliasing 
   puns (linguistic quanta)

Here is a starter set of references but a complete list would 
seem impossible at this point, there's just too many to 
sources to list:

    Flight of Light, Nils Abramson

    Signal Processing in C, Reid and Passin
    Intro to Digital Signal Processing, Karl

    anything on data compression and encryption

    Quantum Measurement, Braginsky and Khalili

    Special Relativity, A. P. French, especially the section
      on alternative time dilation interpretations

    anything on holography, optical illusions, logical paradoxes,
      puns, Rorshach tests, ...

    Mathematical Elements for Computer Graphics, Rogers and Adams

    anything by E.T.Jaynes 

    anything by Manfred Schroeder

    Turing Omnibus, A.K Dewdney

    Information Theory, Goldman
    Fuzzy Thinking, Bart Kosko

    Economics- Mathematical Politics or Science of Diminishing Returns, Rosenberg

    The World according to Wavelets, Hubbard

    Cybernetics, Norbert Wiener

    Design for a Brain, Ross Ashby

    Language Thought and Reality, Benjamin Whorf
     anything on the philosophy/language of the Hopi tribe of native americans

    Course in General Linguistics, Ferdinand Saussure
     linguistics books especially on the Sapir-Whorf conjecture
     and Willard orman van Quine's Translation Indeterminacy (
     without too much effort), and Saussure.    

    Saussure for Beginners W.Terrance Gordon

    McLuhan for Beginners W.Terrance Gordon

    Man and Time, edtd by J Campbell

    The Portable Jung, edtd by Joseph Campbell

    anything on Zen, Taoism, Buddhism, Kabalah, and other religious
      areas dealing with the mastery of dualisms

    The Art of War, Sun Tzu or other chinese philosophy

    anything on the philosophy/language of the Hopi tribe of native americans

    The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams

    anything on world history and world views 

    anything related to Michel Foucault, Orwell, Huxley 
Some suggestions for research:

     Understand Logic first, then analogy, then dualisms.
     Smart, intelligent, wise.
     but work backwards wise, intelligent, smart.

     The Top Down approach:
      Use book indexes extensively as you would a spectrum and avoid reading 
      the whole book whenever possible. Avoid over-using time-series analysis 
      (reading the whole book from front to back) whenever possible.

      Address specifics of an analog, only after you have first tried to 
      find as many analogs as possible.

      Avoid over-using analogies and metaphors (indexes). Use logic
      to connect ideas within analogs but not between them.

      Make mental concordances. Exercise the associative part of your brain 
      and only refer to logic as a tool, not as a philosophy. In fact, don't
      make anything your "philosophy", including science.
      Collect dualisms, analogies and metaphors rather than specific details
      whenever possible. These are data compressed versions of details speeding
      up your work tremendously in terms of generality. 

      Understand the difference between brightness and contrast in a very
      general sense.
      Study "space" and "time" and "space-time" metaphors. 
      They are very fundamental. They are the constraints everything
      works within. Express whatever you are studying in space-time
      first. The go for more detail.

      Be adaptive in regards to anything or idea. Look for what is important
      and not just what is evident. Every thing and idea to some extent has 
      a breadth which suggests metaphors, and depth which suggest details.
      Optimise being a strip data miner as well as a deep-hole data miner to 
      the point where you don't have to think about it and you instinctively
      see the the forest and the tree at the same time.  

      Use the web's search engines analogically. Look for key words and "puns",
      follow the white rabbit wherever it takes you regardless of what
      you think is relevant at that time,...

      Think about the analogies before you go to sleep at night, not the logics.
      If there is an ultimate convergence of all ideas, you will find that 
      path when your analogies have grown in number to sufficient criticality.