22:22
The Now, 22.03.2016, revelation space. Well, seems like there is a catch.
We know since ancient times that numbers are carriers of pure energy, containing a treasure of archetypal, spiritual wisdom.
Long-time on my gaze (synchronicity explorations), the number 22 is associated with universal love and is considered materialized source energy, the Master Builder.
The Hebrew alphabet is made up of 22 letters, which are used to compose the Word of God. The word of God is called a lamp (Psalms 119:105, Proverbs 6:22), thus it is the light by which we are to live.
The word light is found 264 times in Scripture. When 264 is divided by 12 (divine authority) we have 22, which represents light.
God created 22 things in the six days of creation.
Jesus is recorded to have quoted from 22 Old Testament books.
In Tarot, the Major Arcana series culminates with The World card in the 21st station. The World card is symbolic of the attainment of your ultimate spiritual fulfillment. The vibration of number 22, the vibration of the Master Builder, is even higher than that.
The Tarot card that is associated with the energy of 22 is usually The Fool card, either numbered zero or unnumbered in the deck. As a null card, however, it can be said that The Fool is outside of the spiritual progression that the Major Arcana represents. Another way of looking at it is that the entire series is actually happening inside him.
In esoteric symbolism, the number 22 is represented by a cube or square which in turn represents the earth, the physical plane. A cross when folded creates a cube.
The cube also represents the foundations that have been built during earlier stages. And so the symbolic meaning of the 22 is connected with manifestation at the end of a cycle.
Because it carries a double number, 22 is twice as strong as two and reinforces the master number 11. There is the implication of balance – all that is manifest has been created in reality by your thoughts, emotions, and actions. Call it your karma, if you like.
The master numbers are also affirmations you are on the right or wrong track and all is going according to the grand plan of the master architect.
“Catch-22 – Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn’t really crazy.”
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.
- a situation in which a person is frustrated by a paradoxical rule or set of circumstances that preclude any attempt to escape from them
- a situation in which any move that a person can make will lead to trouble
- a vicious cycle
Later Edit 22/08/2020 There is a new series adaptation of the classic Joseph Heller novel. Check Catch 22 on IMDb
Wikipedia says:
A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules. 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.
“You can’t let crazy people decide whether you’re crazy or not can you?”
Further contemplations:
1. ” There is someone in the pub such that, if he is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking “
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:
- 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.
- Otherwise, at least one person is not drinking. For any non-drinking 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.
Here there’s also this fascinating piece:
” 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.
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.”
” 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. “
3. The Paradox of Inquiry | The Learner’s Paradox
Meno asks Socrates:
And how will you enquire into that which you do not know? What will you put forth as the subject of enquiry? And if you find what you want, how will you ever know that this is the thing which you did not know?
Socrates rephrases the question, which has come to be the canonical statement of the paradox:
A man cannot enquire either about that which he knows, or about that which he does not know;
for if he knows, he has no need to enquire;
and if not, he cannot; for he does not know the, very subject about which he is to enquire.