I have recently come across different definitions of Catch-22. A Catch-22 is a dilemma from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent situations. A Catch-22 is is a paradoxical situation where one is caught between two contradictory choices, often leading to a no-win scenario. And according to Wikipedia: From the novel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic) Hopefully, this will give you enough to go on. In this thread, tell us about Catch-22 situations you faced in real life, or make one up, in the spirit of fiction, that you would like to share with all of us.
Here’s a classic: You can’t get a job without experience, but you can’t get experience without a job.
Is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle an example of Catch-22? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Here's another one: You want to apply for a loan at the bank. To apply for the loan, you need a credit history. You can't get a credit history without first getting a loan.
I ran into that one a lot. My answer to it while I was unemployed was? Of course I care if I get a job or a job interview. But if I don't get either, I don't care. (Not sure if that's a Catch-22 situation or not). Why? Because: 1. There are lots more jobs out there; and 2. If they can't see what a good guy I am, they don't deserve to hire me! Keeping those in mind kept me sane while I was unemployed. Sorry, is this the "Cat in the Box" thought experiment? You can always get a loan at another bank. Or from a relative ... who can make up a business name, apply for a business number, and give you the loan. Then, the loan won't be between Mr. Smith Jr and Mr. Smith Sr, but between Mr. Smith Jr and [Insert Business Name Here]. Then when you take it to the bank, the clerk (and the bank manager) will be impressed. It's simply knowing how to sell it. ======================= Another Catch-22: It's harder to sell your book to an agent if you've never been published. But to be published, you must sell your book to an agent. *headdesk*
A Catch-22 is basically another way of saying "Trapped between a rock and a hard place." I read the book, I think in high school, but I hardly remember it. Mainly just the cover, which was what caught my eye. Cool looking helicopter painting.
Yes, OK - aka Walter White. I was thinking of the real Heisenberg, who created the science of quantum mechanics. (Though why you would need mechanics to repair quantum is beyond me). But, of course, you're right that it was Dr Schrödinger who came up with the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment.
Early morning musings on this. Not exactly the same, because it allegedly gets better -- but when one learns yoga one must struggle to get to the point of "ease and comfort", i.e. non-struggling, or in meditation one must consciously work toward not-thinking without thinking about it. The more I think about all this (yes, thinking again) I believe in these situations the solution is the old Gordian knot idea -- instead of trying to sort through things, or unravel a knot, one simply draws a sword and cut the knot, thus unraveling things. One ultimately moves beyond thinking about it and simply does it. For the record, I am far from that point but I am beginning to believe I can get there from here. In the physical or social world, I suppose there are always at least two options -- keep trying until you succeed, or take another approach. One can try to gradually build a credit record in order to eventually buy a home, certainly not a sure option in today's society, or one can work one's way into a job -- look at Homer's restaurant business, always looking for people and letting them work their way. Not easy options, but options. I suppose sometimes there is a third option: give up or in. Not buy a house but continue renting, work at whatever job is out there. For Yossarian, he could desert or keep flying. Or go truly insane. I don't recall what he did.
A good analogy, though I would say struggling with becoming familiar with the new paradigms is important. You should definitely do that befoere just slicing through the knot (actually I guess you have to). In fact sometimes the struggling, from both beginning-point and end-goal, is helpful and familiarizes you with the various aspects of the problem. This (including I think your Gordian knot solution) is a different way of describing what Jung called the Trasnscendent Function. It's about how we end up solving very difficult problems (or maybe conundrums) we find ourselves in that seem insoluble at first. He said we struggle with it first in whatever ways we know how to—trying to solve a new problem using old methods, and that after a while a new solution presents itself, rising from the unconscious. A solution that allows us not to 'solve' the problem in a way we could have before, but instead the struggle, and the new solution that rises from it, allow us to mature beyond the need to see it as an either-or problem—to transcened the problem. And it turns out the real problem was the simplistic binary way we were looking at it. Often life has more than two possibilities, but we tend to see it in those simplistic terms. Certain kinds of problems that we try to solve that way force us to grow inwardly, to engage the unconscious and allow it to help us find the solutiuon the conscious alone is unable to find. When that happens we grow and integrate in new ways, and we simply (often anyway) grow beyond the problem, by learning to see it in new ways and realize we simply didn't understasnd it well enough before. Often it's a matter of realizing that it isn't as simple as This or That, the way we framed it. And it often involves maturing a bit. The conscious mind is set up to work with known quantities—with the familiar, and the unconscious to find patterns in the unknown and the unfamiliar (to deal with what feels like chaos). When we face a catch-22, we're forced to allow them to work on it together, and the solution usually rises from the unconscious, sometimes in a dream or from strange ideas we didn't arrive at through logic and deliberation but seemingly randomly, maybe by putting together ideas from our past that are somehow relevant and help us find the new solution.
Here's another Catch-22: TV is full of trash, we all know that. So how can you find anything good? You have to turn it on and expose yourself to the trash. (No, not that way!)
I could just look it up of course, but it's more fun to try to puzzle it out first. Could it be that you can know either the position or the direction of travel of a subatomic particle, but you can't know both? Ok, now I'mma look it up. Yeah, that was basically it: The uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. Source
Oh, I get it. You can know Walter White or Heisenberg, but you can't know both sides of him. It became true for Jessie too as the show went on—he broke bad in his own rather spectacular way. Not by becoming psychopathic and power-mad, but by being totally broken and hopeless. 2 seemingly incompatible sides of the same person.
It seems like a Catch 22 is where one of two distinct choices self-disqualifies, meaning only one outcome can occur even though two are presented. In the book's case that inevitable outcome is going vroom vroom takakakaka--mayday! myAAAAaaaar pursch. Real world example? That's quite tough. I think people like to use the term for options that are equally paradoxical, meaning each one disqualifies the other, locking the actor in a sort of purgatory (like experience for job, job for experience), but it doesn't quite match the catch first expressed in literature.
Here's a real-world example straight out of Yes, Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is concerned about another financial scandal in the City, caused by a bank that's going to go bust. Fortunately, he has the choice to appoint the Chairman of the Bank of England. His choice is between a righteous do-gooder who will clean up the City, or an old hack (like Sir Desmond Glazebrook) who will cover up for his chums -- and, in exchange, do what he can about inflation for the Prime Minister. In Yes, Prime Minister, PM Hacker chooses to appoint Sir Desmond for political reasons -- and also, because the amabassador of Buranda (a fictitious African country) threatens him that if he promotes the do-gooder to "clean up the City" (in the hopes of good headlines like "Hacker Takes No Nonsense From The City"), the Burandan government will move to blackball the UK and expel it from the Commonwealth. Why? Because the bank that's going bust is propped up by the President and the Prime Minister of Buranda. Taking down the bank would mean a diplomatic incident, a run on the Pound ... and the government going down the toilet. So, here's your Catch-22. What would you do? Would you risk your political career for the good of the country, or decide "Stuff the good of the country, I want to survive in office"?
