22 | Catch 22 | You mean there’s a catch?

Spread the Love
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on TumblrShare on LinkedInEmail this to someoneShare on Google+



Long time on my gaze (synchronicity explorations)

Well, seems like there is a catch.

The Now, 22.03.2016, revelation space


“Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn’t really crazy.”




Catch-22 Google blahblah:

1. a situation in which a person is frustrated by a paradoxical rule or set of circumstances that preclude any attempt to escape from them
2. a situation in which any move that a person can make will lead to trouble
3. a vicious cycle

Wikipedia says:

 A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules.[1][2] An example would be:

To apply for a job, you need to have a few years of experience. But in order to gain experience, you need to get a job first.

Joseph Heller coined the term in his 1961 novel Catch-22, which describes absurd bureaucratic constraints on soldiers in World War II. The term is introduced by the character Doc Daneeka, an army psychiatrist who invokes “Catch 22” to explain why any pilot requesting mental evaluation for insanity—hoping to be found not sane enough to fly and thereby escape dangerous missions—demonstrates his own sanity in making the request and thus cannot be declared insane. This phrase also means a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.

“You mean there’s a catch?”

“Sure there’s a catch,” Doc Daneeka replied. “Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn’t really crazy.”

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.


 “You can’t let crazy people decide whether you’re crazy or not can you?”


Stuff to consider :


1. ” There is someone in the pub such that, if he is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking “

Drinker Paradox

The proof begins by recognizing it is true that either everyone in the pub is drinking, or at least one person in the pub is not drinking. Consequently, there are two cases to consider:

  1. Suppose everyone is drinking. For any particular person, it cannot be wrong to say that if that particular person is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking — because everyone is drinking. Because everyone is drinking, then that one person must drink because when ‘ that person ‘ drinks ‘ everybody ‘ drinks, everybody includes that person.[1][2]
  2. Otherwise at least one person is not drinking. For any nondrinking person, the statement if that particular person is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking is formally true: its antecedent (“that particular person is drinking”) is false, therefore the statement is true due to the nature of material implication in formal logic, which states that “If P, then Q” is always true if P is false.(These kinds of statements are said to be vacuously true.)

A slightly more formal way of expressing the above is to say that, if everybody drinks, then anyone can be the witness for the validity of the theorem. And if someone does not drink, then that particular non-drinking individual can be the witness to the theorem’s validity.

 ” There is a woman on earth such that if she becomes sterile, the whole human race will die out ”

Smullyan writes that this formulation emerged from a conversation he had with philosopher John Bacon

2. Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.

Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality.

George Orwell created the word doublethink in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984);

The word is part of newspeak, a fictional language, a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace.

Any form of thought alternative to the party’s construct is classified as “thoughtcrime”.


” To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink. ”


” The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. “


Meno asks Socrates: “And how will you inquire into a thing when you are wholly ignorant of what it is?

Even if you happen to bump right into it, how will you know it is the thing you didn’t know?”

Socrates rephrases the question, which has come to be the canonical statement of the paradox:

“[A] man cannot search either for what he knows or for what he does not know[.]

He cannot search for what he knows–since he knows it, there is no need to search–nor for what he does not know, for he does not know what to look for.”




Develop the Heart | Gangela