No, I will not take that book. It doesn't seem to have what I am looking for when I want to read a book. I am not looking for truths or 'satisfaction', but for emotion and beauty. I guess that 'The Book of Imperfect Knowledge' could help me out in a lot of things, but I doubt it will make me cry, sad, nostalgic, melancholic, etc. I think literature is an art, and I leave to each person their own path to experience those emotions. On the contrary, that kind of book could be boring and rigid.

I would be bothered if this book were shared with others precisely. It would be an attack on their emotions. I do not consider it a privilege to hold a book such as this one in my hands or someone's else. It could be even dangerous, because it removes the information from other books and lectures, leading people to live under only one perspective.

More than undergo a spell, it would be a curse.

I think it is all of it altogether. I interpret basement 2 as the space where each of us is ourselves. For this reason, he said that basement 2 is 'above' religion, language and custom. These need a collective or community to exist.

@praxis @Jamal Murakami receives the Princess of Asturias Award today. He had a conversation with fans and journalists yesterday. I want to translate into English the following quote. I think it describes what 'Murakamism' is about.

I write when I accept something and introduce it inside me, without previous analysis. Our consciousness is like a house with its floors and, much more important, its basement. On the top floor, we sleep; on the bottom floor, we interact with family members and eat, and in the basement we are alone with the subconscious. And there is a secret door that leads further down to basement 2. And it is with everything we find there that a novel is made. But you have to be willing to go all the way down there. It's not easy, do any of you have basement 2?
It is there at the bottom where you find the important things that are above religion, language and custom; it is there that the writer finds his readers regardless of the religion they profess, the language they speak or the customs they inhabit. — Murakami

:up:

It is raining in Madrid. I love rainy days, and while I enjoy the nature I am listening to Lonikos Psimikakis-chalkokondilis. He is a very talented shakuhachi player, and one of his virtues is to express the wilderness.

I fully recommend you to listen him and his works.

Ah, I understand better. You consider religion as an enemy of human development. Christianity has managed to 'zombify' the people with the aim of not allowing them to think by themselves, and this caused slow progress in some parts of the world. Well, I used to think in this way too, but I think I am switching my beliefs and thoughts because 'progressivism', 'collectivism', and leftism have disappointed me. It is not a crisis because of scepticism of the current situation, but an act of open my eyes more often.

But we should move on from this since the act of bashing religion, while understandable, is dull. — Tom Storm

Yeah, and it is infantile. At least, I acted in such a way...

s a nihilist, I don't see reason to accept any transcendent meaning... — Tom Storm

I cannot conceive that an upright and clever person like you has no interest in life and existence - per se -

it doesn't change the fact that the religious are often experts at it — Tom Storm

It is true that some religious groups use the rhetoric of the Bible - or Quran - viciously. But this is far away from making people lose vitality. I think religion is one of the main causes of keeping people active. Let's see the Evangelists or Pan-Islamists.

Luck determines most things, but you can roll with the punches, adapt and make opportunities even in adversity. — Tom Storm

Where does 'luck' come from? It is a metaphysical thought, or we can only know it though spiritedness. Because it is obvious that some have more luck than others. Why does this happen?

But giving up is always a possibility... :wink: — Tom Storm

I hope you don't give up on believing - on whatever you wish -. I was close to that abyss, and it is not worth living in such a way. :smile:

Katsumoto : The way of the Samurai is not necessary anymore.
Algren : Necessary? What could be more necessary? — baker

Excellent! What film does this quote come from?

Many people who embrace religions do see the world through a very limited and doctrinaire lens which is its own form of zombification. — Tom Storm

I agree. But as much as some people who embrace themselves in political doctrines and sectarianism.

Not sure that really means very much. What is 'something'? The issue with a belief is whether is is useful or true or good. Not just any belief will do — Tom Storm

Although existentialism has been becoming less relevant in philosophy, it has key elements to understand our relationship and cause with life since we were born. I don't attempt to say that religion has answers to 'Who am I?' 'Why do I live well and others die in Gaza?' 'What is my destiny?' Etc. I understand that, in such a sense of uncertainty, some have faith. I am not referring to religious collectivism or the Church itself, but the aesthetics of 'experiencing' a belief individually.

Well said — 0 thru 9

:up: Thanks!

Religious/spiritual people seem to be "free" to you? Free of what? Free to do what? — baker

A free state of mind or consciousness. They want to redeem their souls. I am not anyone to rant about them. It is my guilt that I have not found faith yet.

But religions an spiritualities are already zombifying people anyway. — baker

As much as consumerism, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, pornography, or TV do to the youth. Who are we to judge people who want to redeem themselves? I searched for the definition of zombifying, and Google says: Deprive of energy and vitality. For example: She will stare zombified on TV for 20 minutes.

Do you really think that religion or spirituality deprive people from energy? I don't think so. It is just -let's say - a pathway to a free state of mind. Whether you like it or not, there will always be the necessity to believe in something. Far away from what we are all able to perceive or understand.

she could be indicating there IS NO sense of correctness in this “question”, and thus how CAN she “answer” at all—the “correct” “answer” is to throw up her hands and say “no”, as if to say: “What?”. Another way to interpret this is that, of course, Carol CAN answer ‘no’, she can say whatever she wants, defying your idea of correctness with her own truth to herself, in protest. — Antony Nickles

Exactly. That's what I attempted to explain to @PL Olcott, but it is impossible to agree with him, because according to his point, there will always be an incorrect answer because the question is 'posed' to Carol. It seems that poor Carol is guilty of everything regarding this tricky dilemma!

Progress on 7 required reforms 2022 Feb 28 - 2023 Jun 22 (wartime) — jorndoe

Yes, sure, they are capable of making progress during a war... :roll:
The rest of the countries need years, even a decade. And these Ukrainian mates in just nearly two years are progressing... Are there any who really trust in such fictional data?

Additionally, Ukraine wouldn't be accepted into the EU if there was a genocide going on. — jorndoe

They would not be accepted in any possible way. North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, and Moldova are recognised candidates which cannot join the EU yet. They made a lot of efforts to join the club, especially Moldova with a huge tax reform or Serbia with a big reform on civil issues (such as being more empathic with gay marriages, for example).

Ukraine didn't do anything. Their 'potential' membership is just a stupid movement from the West to keep deteriorating Russia's interests and safety.

Article 49 of the Maastricht Treaty (as amended) says that any "European state" that respects the "principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law", may apply to join the EU.

Do you really think Zelensky's Ukraine fulfils those requirements?

This article says: — Hanover

I do not consider the Western press and media as reliable.

It <is> the lack of a correct answer thus
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this [yes/no] question?
has (a) yes (b) no (c) anything else as not a correct answer to Carol's question
thus proving that anything that Carol can say or fail to say is not a correct answer
when posed to Carol. — PL Olcott

OK. But why is the question being asked to Carol if it will end up in an incorrect answer? It is difficult to see the logic of the question at all. So our answer to both paradoxes may be that they actually have no meaning and so cannot have a truth value. Your proposition is Universal Negative. Carol's answer is not correct - "No S is P" -. Yet, the relation with other logical propositions can connect contradictions, where the truth of one implies the falsehood of the other, and vice versa. Thus, it is false that Carol's answer will always be incorrect because there could be a possibility - as we debated before - but, at the same time, due to the set of preferences, it is also true that Carol cannot answer correctly. We end up in a loop where it is impossible to leave...

So Carol's question when posed to Carol meets the definition of an incorrect question
in that both answers from the solution set of {yes, no} are the wrong answer. — PL Olcott

Well, yes. If there is only a set binary solution: 'yes/no'. What I disagree with, is that an omission from Carol is not necessarily an incorrect answer, since she didn’t say 'yes' nor 'no'. I mean, she doesn't 'express' one of the set solutions.

Likewise no computer program H can say what another computer program D will do
when D does the opposite of whatever H says. — PL Olcott

OK. I don't get this. I thought we were debating about Carol and now two computer programs have arisen. It is not clear to me why 'computer program D' will always do the opposite of 'computer program H'. You are assuming that Carol will always do the opposite as well, and then this is why there will be an incorrect answer continuously, right?

So don't say to me that Japanese culture is somehow dead. It's very alive and influential. And if Samurai warriors don't walk around armed to the teeth in Japanese cities anymore, it hardly isn't an example of cultural decadence. — ssu

I agree on this point. Of course, Japanese culture is still influential, but the main debate that conservatives - or populists - have in Japan is if it was that worthy the influence of Western culture in Japan. Most of the Japanese citizens who I talked with agreed with this, and they love Europe and the USA in general. They are not nationalist because they learnt the lesson after WWII. I am not going to lie to you: I wish I see some Samurai if I go to Japan one day, as well as I watched them in Kurosawa's films. :wink:
But I am aware that this is just my taste, and most of the Japanese don't feel represented by their Samurai past any more.

The aspect that surprised me the most, is that they consider 'cultural decadence' the way they wear clothes. Suits are Western, and some of them miss wearing a yukata or kimono, because these are only used at important festivals. Yet, they are aware that if they wear a yukata the foreigners would not take them seriously...

I think many Japanese are proud of what they have made of their Island nation compared to other Asian nations. — ssu

Absolutely. They truly believe this.

Yukio Mishima is the perfect example here. He made his "coup" and tried to get Japanese soldiers of the Self Defence Forces to stage a revolution. They mocked him. Mishima stopped after few minutes and then took his own life. — ssu

Well, Mishima committed seppuku after losing the last hope he had in Japanese society. He knew that after the nuclear attacks, Japan would be a different country and even the Japanese citizens felt ashamed of themselves. There is a good quote by him: 'If Japan had won the war, Japanese youngsters would go to Kabuki theatre. But the Americans are the ones who won, so they go to dance at Jazz clubs instead' This quote perfectly represents the impact of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Furthermore, being an immoral murder, it has nearly vanished a millennial culture.

Mishima even stated in some essays that 'corruption' and 'representatives' in a Parliament are just a Western thing and Japan was poisoned with these elements. He had nostalgia about living in a Samurai era where honour and loyalty were the pillars of Japan: 'Bushidō' He was right in terms that, after Japan becoming a 'modern' nation, they had to face big social problems: the middle-class way of life - capitalism - and, yes, corruption. Nonetheless, the roots of Japanese honorary culture remain, because when a case of corruption arises, the average politician resigns. An example: Japan's Olympic minister resigns over Fukushima gaffe

Do you know what is the worst? That a great part of modern Japanese society feel ashamed of their past and values for not letting them win the war, and post-changes were necessary to become a 'Western' alike modern nation...

It's similar with the question of Japan's surrender. Would the war have dragged to 1947 and would have quarter of a million US servicemen died? Who knows. — ssu

It is obvious that Japan would have won against the US if Truman hadn't dropped the atomic bombs. To be honest, I think it was a filthy movement from the government of the United States because they were aware that the honourable soul of the Japanese is unbreakable. The kamikaze ('kami' God/ 'kaze' air) were considered martyrs of the glorious Japanese Empire. Yukio Mishima and Shintaro Ishihara wrote a lot of this. Rather than a big destruction, it was a KO in their integrity and self-esteem. They understood that after a nuclear bomb, they would not be able to face the USA again militarily. Fortunately, the Japanese soul of working hard and improving continuously didn't change.

The beautiful Hiroshima nowadays:

Well, just imagine yourself in the shoes of President Truman, when he is told about this new bomb alternative. — ssu

Now, imagine ourselves in Hirohito's shoes afterwards. Japanese folks have always believed that the royal family were holy, and they were treated like deities. After losing WWII, there were a lot of changes to the Japanese constitution: the Emperor no longer had the treatment of holy; Japan lost their army, and Japanese foreign principle is resolve conflicts using peace. Conclusion: the USA erased the Samurai soul of Japan... this is what bothers me the most. Well, the ministers of defence and military authorities committed seppuku after losing the war because of the shame they felt about themselves. Amazing. This kind of honour is impossible to see in the Western world. For example: when the Republicans lost the Civil War here, they fled to France or Argentina. :roll:

(Carol could answer with a word that is synonymous with no) — PL Olcott

Exactly. Good point, but it is difficult to find a synonym with 'no' because this is an adverb used to give negative answers. I did research on Google and in the Cambridge Dictionary and I found 'none', a pronoun. Does this could be a correct answer if it is used by Carol?

Carol can say or fail to say cannot possibly provide a correct answer to that question from the stipulated solution set of {yes, no}. — PL Olcott

Unless synonyms or omissions are allowed, yes, Carol will always fail to answer this stipulated question set

Well, after having a reasoning with myself, I came to the conclusion that omission cannot be an incorrect answer from Carol. This is due to the premise one: you are expecting from her an ambiguous answer: 'yes/no'. Either of each is wrong, but her silence doesn't. We are not on a duty, but a simple question. But she is not forced to answer at all, right?
Ability and possibility of answering are the key factors in Carol. Because:

A) Carol is capable of answering, but there is no possibility with the patters given.

B) Carol is able to answer, but she remains in silence and doesn't say 'no' nor 'yes' to not fall into the trap of the 'incorrect' question.

C) The only possible correct answer is the omission of Carol because the 'incorrect' result is posed to her only if she answers in any case.

If Carol doesn't want to get blamed for answer incorrectly, then she remains silent.

Check this: When I visited TPF a few minutes ago, I had in mind to check about your recent activity (comments)! — Alkis Piskas

Ha! This is funny because when I saw this thread I thought you would dive in, because I am aware that you like logic and tricky questions.

How can you call this (in Japanese)? :smile: — Alkis Piskas

I do not know, and I must accept that I haven't taken Japanese lessons for a while. I am very busy!

You are not wrong. And I think you do have a clue, and a correct one. — Alkis Piskas

Thank you, Alkis. This tricky thread has got me thinking more than I expected.

I would check more of your recent messages but it's got late. Maybe tomorrow ... — Alkis Piskas

OK. By the way, we can speak through PM if you want to.

(c) No answer is not a correct answer from Carol.
We have exhaustively examined every possibility and thus proven every action taken by Carol does not result in a correct answer. — PL Olcott

Interesting...

Let me think about this deeply. Maybe I can come back with more substantive comments, and see other possibilities. I appreciate how you considered each feasible scenario of Carol's behaviour. I still believe that there can be a possible correct answer.

By extension, all this applies and is an answer to your topic itself: If the context in which a question is asked is mission or not clear, of course this question might receive not incorrect, but inappropriate answers, i.e. answers "out of context" or "off-topic", as we use to say. A classic example is an ambiguous question that can be answered with both "Yes" and "No", about which you talked in your description. — Alkis Piskas

:up:

Since both yes and no are an incorrect answer from Carol this conclusively proves that Carol's question meets the stipulated definition of an incorrect question when posed to Carol. — PL Olcott

Well, if we want to go further and make these premises even trickier, we can assert that Carol is not forced to answer in any case. So, there is a possibility for Carol to answer with an omission. Yet again, I claim that the 'incorrect' question doesn't depend whether is posed on Carol or not.

So, we haven't proved anything conclusively yet. :smile:

You didn't grow up to be the fine upstanding American we were hoping for. — frank

Ha! Ha! You made me laugh, my dear pal.

I knew it would be funny to read the arguments of the Americans backing up the massacre in Gaza, but at the same time, in the 'Ukraine Crisis' thread criticising Putin for being bloody and not letting Ukraine be free and independent...

Something that Palestine wants too...

Starting with the false premise that Israel occupies a foreign land, I'm not sure what follows from there.

Israel is the legitimate possessor of its land. — Hanover

Ha! These Westerners…

According to your own premise, Russia is legitimate to occupy Crimea, Donbas and Donetsk, right?

Oh no no boy... Putin cannot do that, he is evil.

The hypocrisy of these Western lovers and ‘seekers of freedom.’ :roll:

Ah, the incorrect side is the recipient (Carol) because her answer would be incorrect using the two sets 'yes/no'. Well, I am starting to think that Carol is not human, and I am misunderstanding her and 'she' is a computer program or something related. If she were a human, the possibilities of answering would be longer than just two options.

An incorrect yes/no (technically polar) question is any yes/no question lacking a correct answer from the set of {yes, no} or {true, false} — PL Olcott

Here is where I disagree with you.

Correct/incorrect are not related to the truth or false in your question to Carol. Again, if they are either true or false, there must be something about them that makes them true or false. Your objection to the truth or falsehood cannot be determined in the context. In a sense, this means that Carol ('P' or predicate) consists of nothing but p with a predication of truth (thus, she can actually answer, but the question is incorrect). We can say that the truth or falsehood of Carol's answer is 'undetermined'.

If I ask you how many feet long is the color of your car? no one can provide a correct answer because the question itself is incorrect. The same thing happens when a self-contradictory question is asked. — PL Olcott

I understand it better now, thanks!

One thing that I found in my 20 year long quest is that self-contradictory expressions are not true. As a corollary to this self-contradictory questions are incorrect. — PL Olcott

Basically, you claim that Carol's answer will always be incorrect because the question itself is incorrect too. So, we are lead to a self-contradictory result endlessly. Although I agree with you, and now I understand your thread a bit better, I still do not see the correlation between 'yes/no' - or 'correct/incorrect' - and true and false.

I think that the question being incorrect doesn't mean that Carol's answer is false. Actually, it is true that she is able to answer but not with the patterns given because the question is 'wrong'.

Carol cannot correctly answer her question yet when she says "no" then she has correctly answered her question making "no" the wrong answer.

When Carol says "yes" this means that she can correctly answer her question with "no" yet we just proved that is incorrect. — PL Olcott

I agree. This is getting tricky, yes. I understand that it is proven that Carol cannot answer with 'yes' to claim that she can answer 'no' to the question. According to this context, it is getting more paradoxical, and I think this was the main point of your thread. What I do not understand is why you consider the question as 'wrong' when we are debating whether Carol is capable of answering the question correctly.

I mean: 'yes/no' doesn't affect the possibility of Carol answering as the question requires. At least, we can agree that the assertion of Carol answering as required is true.

I haven't changed the question. I claimed that Carol is actually capable of answering 'no'. I mean, there is not a contradiction between the question and the possibly answer from Carol. There must be something about this paradox that makes the assertion of Carol as true... or false. :smile:

I do not see it as an 'incorrect' question/answer but whether the assertions are either true or false. Can Carol correctly answer 'no' to this question? There is a true possibility that Carol could do so.

I changed the words to the better words of the PhD computer science professor. — PL Olcott

Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
Let's ask Carol. If she says “yes”, she's saying that “no” is the correct answer for her, so “yes” is incorrect. If she says “no”, she's saying that she cannot correctly answer “no”, which is her answer. So both answers are incorrect. Carol cannot answer the question correctly.

Because:
(1) Both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answer from Carol. — PL Olcott

I see what you mean now. It is a paradox.

Yet, I think we can get a different result if we switch the assertions. The Anti-Liar paradox teaches us that the form of a proposition can determine its own truth or falsehood only if it is either a tautology or a contradiction. Neither the Carol's answer nor the possible answer is either a tautology or a contradiction.

Because:

A) If Carol's answer is true, then what she says is true. Therefore, it is the correct answer.

B) If Carol's answer is false, then what she says is false. Therefore, it is the wrong answer.

There is a possible alternative for Carol to answer correctly. Whether it is true or not that Carol can actually answer 'no' to the question itself.

It looks like it's going to end with no Palestinians in Gaza, in other words, a massacre. — frank

Yes, sadly. And most of the governments of the world are accepting and even backing up the massacre. Only a few condemned this madness and when they do so, the rest treat them as 'enemies'.

You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
> yes/no answer to the following question... — PL Olcott

Then the question is an incorrect question when posed to Jack — PL Olcott

As far as I have understood your reasoning, I think the latter fails to follow the original pattern of your premises. Firstly, you were asking for truthful yes/no answers to a specific question: 'Will Jack's answer to this question be no?' Not giving any relevance to whether the question is correct or incorrect, because you focused on the result, not the beginning. But, on the second group of premises, you focus on the questions instead. Rather than switching the 'context' - as you claim in your arguments - I think you are switching the meaning.

But maybe I am wrong, and I don't have a clue about what is going on. :smile:

If we only care about Israel's risks, this war will never end. This is what Putin claimed indirectly, and it answers your question. This is a conflict between two involved parts, and we should not care only about the interests of one of the sides. They are at risk because of the way they chose to manage their borders as we know today. Now, they have to face the consequences.

He's simplistically boiled down the issue so that he can take the opportunity to criticise his rival to the world. — flannel jesus

Well, he just told reliable facts. I think he wasn't meant to criticise the Western world only.

"Give Palestine independence and sovereignty" is OF COURSE ideal, but how do you do that without putting Israel at even further risk? — flannel jesus

Do you know that Israel is in a territory that never belonged to them? I don't see the Old Testament as a legitimate 'paper', it is not a treaty or convention. Maybe you do...

But the "we-are-in-Afghanistan-because-otherwise-it-will-become-a-terrorist-safe-have" absurdity was the official mantra given. In my view it is far more absurd and illogical than the domino theory during the Cold War. — ssu

:up:

Well, it doesn't seem likely that Ukraine would send weapons away. — jorndoe

Do you mean our weapons which were given to them for fighting against Russia?

It does look like the Kremlin is taking or forcing a path to a Cold War II, with some Hot spots, except they've learned from how the last one ended. — jorndoe

Oh, yes, that's a given! Russia is the only country which wants to polarise the world. But hey, Israel - backed up by the US and EU - has the right to occupy Gaza and kill thousands of citizens, including children. I think you guys need to be more pragmatic. The Kremlin is not that bad and the White House is not that good.