Marcia Ricci Pinheiro

In this paper, we discuss three translation techniques: literal, cultural, and artistic. Literal translation is a well-known technique, which means that it is quite easy to find sources on the topic. Cultural and artistic translation may be new terms. Whilst cultural translation focuses on matching contexts, artistic translation focuses on matching reactions. Because literal translation matches only words, it is not hard to find situations in which we should not use this technique. Because artistic translation focuses on reactions, judging the quality of an artistic translation work is one of the most difficult things one can do. We end up having a score of complexity and humanity for each one of the mentioned techniques: Literal translation would be the closest thing we have to the machines world and artistic translation would be the closest thing we have to the purely human world. By creating these classifications and studying the subtleties of each one of them, we are adding degrees of quality to our courses and to translation as a professional field. The main contribution of this paper is then the formalization of such a piece of knowledge. We, however, also lay the foundations for studies of this type.

We present a new model for the human psyche in this paper. We support the thinkers from Philosophy of Science that believe that we should keep the theory that best explains our phenomena, and, therefore, we believe that we should keep the theory we here present for the human psyche. We present evidences as to why our theory explains the human psyche better than the Freudian and the Jungian theories. We include all concepts created by Jung and Freud in our theory apart from the collective unconscious. We introduce the elements extended id and extended ego in terms of human personality and the elements judgmental, non-judgmental, shared, and non-shared in terms of human mind. Our methodology consists in performing a logical analysis of the theories of Freud and Jung and then put them against the known reality to come up with solutions that address the gaps that both exhibit.

Our investigative question is what part of the human psyche is active when we are sleeping. We use the single-counter-example method, extracted from Classical Logic, to prove that it could not be the case that one of our existing models for the human psyche could explain the human sleep. The models of the human psyche that we consider are the Freudian, the Jungian, and our own. By proving that no known part could be active whilst we sleep, and we prove all by presenting known facts, we reach the conclusion that we need a new model of psyche to account for the entire complexity of our beings. We associate sleep with dreams. Upon discussing the human dreams in more details, we end up applying the principles of the inference to the best explanation to explain the human dreams by means of references to the spiritual world. That makes us think about how the spiritists would describe our psyche, and we then present a new model. The new model is obviously a fruit of speculation. This time, the model involves all Freudian elements, our extensional elements, body, and soul. We use the synthetic method to construct our new model. Since our sleep time is so important, to the point of obliging us to build a new model for the human psyche, we worry about protecting it. We then use studies on the impact of noise on humans to talk about how bad the consequences of having a person speaking to us during sleep are. This trivially extends to people that are in hypnotic state. We try to make a case against hypnosis and interference with the sleep of human beings by referring to health, spiritual, and world consequences. Our main result is then a new model for the human psyche, and this time a model that has to do with what is beyond what has already been formally acknowledged by us. A secondary result is that we should not allow people to hypnotize others or to speak to them as they sleep. Our conclusions are that there is definitely something beyond our rationality that happens during our sleep time and this something has not been identified by Freud, Jung or us this far. Besides, that we should not allow people to hypnotize others or speak to them as they sleep.

We talk about how to best protect Australia against cyberterrorist attacks of the type in which the offenders use a computer to attack or in which the offenders attack computers. Our concern is phenomena like Stuxnet and Ransomware, but also any attack that has not yet happened, as for our official records, so say hacking of satellite and use of its allowances to burn people alive to death. We talk about the basics, which could be the advice of FireEye, and we talk about the sophisticated, which could be what is not yet printed. We worry about actions that could be considered part of the intelligence system, so things that demand detailed study of the past and systemic plus organised collection of data in the present. We do not talk about how to deal with Acts of War: Only about how to protect our systems to best so that we do not get those happening via computer or from a computer.

This essay discusses the Vietnam War from the perspective of the strategist, and with focus on men-power,which is part of the concept of `order of the battle’. The interest is progressing toward determining best methodsfor the calculation of estimates of this type to decrease mistake in wars that involve various nations. Uponstudying the debate involving the estimates for the Vietnam War, period ranging from 1965 to 1968, theconclusion is that there were gross mistakes from the part of the military, and methods of producing the order ofthe battle have to be much better examined. Systems of decision, and management deserve revision, so that whathas happened during the Vietnam War does not repeat: important is saving human lives, not the prestige ofindividual institutions or even the amount of negative criticism that is made publicly available about them.National forces must mean also Academia, and there is a chance that Academia can improve those systems bymuch if governmental authorities acknowledge its existence in all sectors of the national life. The best strategyis still including the dissident group or person, not facing them as an enemy, when it comes to those who areregarded by the general public as part of the national forces.

Incarceration is a hurdle for The State, the perpetrator‘s family, society in general, the victim, and the perpetrator themselves. Laws, regulations, and rules are as relative, and fragile as their associated human group intended them to be, and it is frequently the case that they change so completely from one location to another that one can be regarded as a hero in one place, and most unacceptable perpetrator in another for practicing the same acts. It is time for a change: community justice centers are a good start - especially if one considers their court intervention programs –because they align with the concept of restorative justice, and form a natural step toward incarceration zero, which has to be human kind‘s goal.

In this paper, we try to provide a theory that explains human behavior, and thinking in their totality. We missed the corporeal part when writing the theory about our new model for the human psyche: It was missing explaining that some things are physical, such as memories, involuntary organic movements, disease, etc. If we had developed a philosophical model for the soma, we would also miss the essence of the individual, what we have decided to call psyche. In order to explain how our hand could not stand the pressure and ended up releasing the link that then got lose and killed somebody, we need the philosophical explanation involving the soma. In order to explain why a person had a shared-ego moment, we need the philosophical explanation involving the psyche. In this way, it is missing creating a theory that unifies all in order to produce a set that can explain any situation that involves human behavior and thinking. We are then calling the entity that collects all in one, which is needed for our better understanding, Human Persona. Persona because that reminds us of individuality, unique characteristics that tell us that the individual we call John Smith, of id 143, is someone special. Human because we do talk about personality of animals, and we would like to make sure we create an impression of difference and superiority when referring to humans. The tools we here use are logical analysis, deductive reasoning, selection and collection of real-life evidence, etc.

Entailment is an interesting sigmatoid: It should mean one thing, but it means another, just for starters. When used in Mathematics, it is usually with the sense of saying that something is definitely true. That would be the use in Classical Logic then. When used in Logic, it became something else. Now it was about how the logical system, which can be any nonclassical one, could be making a proposition become true or false. The major issue we found in 2000, when learning from the own nonclassicists what they do, was that they talk about Nonclassical Logic, therefore a way of thinking that is not Cartesian, yet they stick to the notion of entailment we use in Mathematics, and therefore to the Classical Logic ways. We here discuss exactly this.

We here propose a solution to the problem we have raised. Basically, the mathematical notion of entailment seems to be connected to the inferential rules from Classical Logic, so that if we have P: x belongs to the reals, and Q: x+2=5 => x=3, P |= Q. Notwithstanding, we would also have that if P: x belongs to the interval (7,10), and Q: x+2=5 => x=3, P |= Q. The second instance of entailment does not seem to be justifiable if our intuition is consulted: Even though we could say that absurdity implies anything in Classical Logic, entailment should be a concept that belongs to the metalogic, not to the logic of the system, so that we should not be inside of the Classical Logic World by the time we assess things in what regards entailment. As another point, our discussions in Entailment led us to choose the sense has as a consequence for entailment, so that it is not really acceptable that we have, as a consequence, using normal language, of x being inside of the real interval (7,10) that if x+2=5, then x=3. If x is in that interval, x+2 should not be 5, unless we are talking about moduli of vectors. However, when we transfer to Classical Logic, in having the antecedent false, and the consequent false as well, we have that the implication, which some call material, is true. We here discuss this sort of matter in detail, and hope to get to the bottom of the issue, and perhaps to a universal solution.

In this paper, we take the approach of the lexicon makers: We contemplate human language instead of trying to resist its forces. Basically, some sigmatoids seem to have been created to be free of boundaries: We fence them as we please when we apply them to our assertions, but they are quite vague in the lexicon. We here identify at least two types of such sigmatoids: The synthetisers and the specifiers. The former would originate from our capacity of isolating common features of objects that, in principle, have no possible intersection. The latter would originate from our attempt of describing the 3D World by means of 2D entities. We conclude that the intrinsic vagueness of these sigmatoids is something not only acceptable, but either pleasant or necessary.

In this paper, we recover the idea cast by Graham Priest to our ears in 2000: That it was possible to experience Ontological Paraconsistency in life. He had, back then, as a translation of his thinking, a painting by Escher: The stairs could be going up or down, and one could not tell where they were going by simply examining the painting. The most obvious argument as to why that was not an instance of Ontological Paraconsistency found in reality was that the perspective from which you would have to stare at the painting to see something different would be different too, so that it was impossible that we were getting up and down at the same time, that is, from the same perspective. That would happen with anything we picked in this world. We recently found something that does not entirely belong to this world, however, something that could finally satisfy the requirements of Priest, and therefore prove to us that there is a place for Ontological Paraconsistency. We observe that the paraconsistent robot, Emmy (Abe et al., 2006), is an application of the Non-ontological Paraconsistency, which we always believed to be passive of existence, but we here talk about another type of paraconsistency, which would be intrinsic to the being. The purpose of this paper is then providing a definite answer to the questions: Is there any real life instance of Ontological Paraconsistency? Is Ontological Paraconsistency a useful concept in terms of logical theories?