We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's 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.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he [Yossarian] observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
From Joseph Heller's "Catch-22" (thanks, reader BL)
Good catch by BL. Wasn’t his father an aviator(?) in ‘WWII and his son now a (private or commercial) pilot?
Only tangentially to the Catch-22 conundrum above, one could wonder whether and to what extent sane people take risk? It's easy to conclude that, of course they do, but only up to a point, unless not to go further is to risk too much or to gain too little.
IOW, assessing whether to take risk or no is a fluid and personal exercise, subjectively justifiable within the bounds between rational and irresponsible perspective. What’s logic got to do with it when you can pick both your assumptions and supposed implications?
ha ha--good questions--I'll have to think on 'em. Hmm--will there be any disjunct between the results of the assumptions and implications we pick out of your own minds a priori, versus the results that Ma Nature has in store for us?