bloggibindoggins.

Disclaimer: To preface this little bit of rambling, I wish to warn that I will be using the word "crazy" here to describe a generic type of mental disorder. In each case described, it seems that the situation itself perpetuates the nature of the disorder. The only proper layman's description for the resulting state of being in each of the following case is "cracked" or "crazy" - as in, "It's enough to drive a person crazy."

To experience a conundrum akin to the origins behind the phrase "Catch-22" is a bit maddening. If the story behind Catch-22 is unfamiliar, I'll attempt to summarize wikipedia's entry. Essentially, it's a circular problem: if you admit you're crazy, then you must not be crazy because you know you're crazy. The logic is that a crazy person wouldn't know that he/she is crazy. Catch-22 has a character (Orr) who would prefer to be discharged from military service (flying more missions) for being crazy but if he admits he's unbalanced, then his superiors assume that he must be sane for knowing the difference.
The character of Corporal Klinger on M.A.S.H. presents the same type of story (with a bit of a difference). He was acting crazy and his superiors accepted it because they recognized the game he was playing. It was a bit too flamboyant, I suppose. He was trying too hard. They had called his bluff but he wasn't admitting it. That may have proved he was actually crazy. He didn't realize his bluff had been called. Or maybe he did and just didn't want to admit it to himself. It's fair to argue that in each character, Orr or Klinger, the pressure or stress (PTSD) related to wartime experience is more than likely the cause of their initial psychosis - which is then perpetuated by the "Catch-22" situation.

This type of conundrum can also present itself in subtle manifestations. It's a bit like Schrodinger's Cat in that a problem/issue can exist and cannot exist at the same time. For instance, one person (A) claims that another person (B) has caused him/her harm but doesn't want to discuss it. There's no resolution in sight because person B doesn't know what the issue is about and cannot work to either make amends or alter his/her actions to possibly rectify the situation. The issue can/will never be resolved if person A will not reveal the origin of the issue to person B.

The issue is real and is not real at the same time.

I like to believe that the legendary Hatfields & McCoys were a little better off for knowing were their shared animosities originated.

These ruminations (and more) have been taking up head-space for the past several weeks now and will hopefully find a bit of a landing spot here. Bill Donovan, a fellow graduate painting student, told me once that it takes the action of saying an idea/something out loud for it to attempt to become concrete (or real). (Like testing the waters.)

Conviction, conjuring ideas into tangible things, sharing thoughts, conundrums, moving forward while being pushed back - but then pushing forward again, trying to attain simple goals but failing or not ever having time to accomplish goals because of exterior circumstances - these are all things swirling around in there right now.