innerfire said:
Wow! I bet it would help A GREAT LOT if he does so. mmmm...Good suggestion! And it would be better if you let him know this.
To kneel down DOES in some sense reflect sincerety, I think. At least it's a pretty practical way to express that.
It's wonderful if that happens: finally I begin to see a remedy in the horizon however far off.
But I'm a little bit pessimistic about this: Koizumi will never do that. Here's my reasoning:
For there exists:
1. As we all know that: "A -> B" equals to "not(B) -> not(A)";
2. To kneel down --in some sense--> To be sincere;
3. Japan government is, at least in many Asian's eyes, not sincere;
Then we can draw a conclusion as follows:
Koizumi will never kneel down.
What a great way to approach our problem employing mathematical logic. I wonder if this is equivalent to your reasoning:
theorem1 said:
A sincere person can apologise kneeling down.
theorem2 said:
Given theorem1 that a sincere person can apologise kneeling down, if p1, then q1, where
p1: Mr. Koizumi is a sincere person,
q1: Mr. Koizumi apologises kneeling down.
Given that theorem 1 is true, if p1 then q1; in mathematical symbols, theorem1; p1 --> q1.
The truth value
T(theorem2) = T(theorem1; p1-->q1)
is equivalent to the truth value
T(T(theorem1)^T(p1-->q1)) = T(T(theorem1)^(~p1 V q1)).--equation (a)
But there is evidence contrary to p1,-- evidence (b)
so the truth value
T(theorem1) = F; -- value (c)
T(p1)=F, ie. T(~p1)=T. -- value (d)
Although T(q1) is undecided because we don't know if q1 will happen, we may still logically obtain truth value
T(theorem2) = T(theorem1; p1-->q1)
by logical calculations with are basically substitutions of logical equivalents.
T(theorem2)
=T(theorem1; p1-->q1)
=T(T(theorem1)^(~p1 V q1)) -- equation (a)
=T(theorem1)^T(~p1 V q1)
=****F****^(**T**V*?*) -- values (c), (d)
=F^T
=F
It has been shown that whether Mr. Koizumi kneels down in apology to the Chinese people or not, theorem 2 will always be false; the cause of it is suspected to be what is known as evidence (b); hence we arrive at the following conclusion.
theorem3 said:
Given theorem1 that a sincere person can apologise kneeling down, if p2, then q2, where
p2: Mr. Koizumi is a not a sincere person,
q2: It makes no difference whether Mr. Koizumi apologises kneeling down or not.
*'s were used for formatting purpose only.
In conclusion I feel obliged to raise the essential yet tricky question; given the logical impossiblity that without sincerity it can never be true to apologise kneeling down and be fully trusted, should Mr. Koizumi still apoogise kneeling down before the victims, relatives, places of aggression, graveyards, and victimised nations ? I would say he should still try; that is the whole point of going through the process of repentance, forgiveness, and ultimately atonement if you will. Human existence is too precious to be wasted on a quality of emptiness.