Logic Puzzles: The Issue of Balance

It is a common trope in the entertainment industry for there to be a balance between good and evil. This theme is so common, it is almost considered as ideal. The only reason it could be ideal is if it represents a state that is superior to the present world, and a world where there is just as much evil as good is spiritually pathetic. There is simply nothing ideal about evil, certainly not in a lasting fashion. Suffering and error can bring about learning and character, but these positives lead to a state of goodness held by the personality.

Balance can indicates a gray world, one where there are not always clear answers. A world with truly subjective morals certainly could lead to people fighting for what they think is right, and this occurs in the real world as well. People can do unspeakable things simply because they feel they have a good reason. Wars can occur between nations when neither nation really holds moral superiority. In a world where few actions are entirely good or bad, as there is no clear example of moral perfection, the world may seem balanced. However, is such balance something to fight for? In this type of world, you rarely fight to make things ambiguous again. In this world, people search desperately for the right answers – they self-validate by rationalizing their decisions and their perspective because the environment rarely does this for them. In this type of balanced world, the general goal for both good and evil is to upset that balance.

Balance can also indicate a world with clear definitions of good and evil, one where people are rigidly sorted between these two sides. And in this type of world, balance isn't something someone should fight for either. No particular side should want more people or power on the apposing side. Balance in this world is not ideal, as it indicates never-ending error and sin. Still, a "balanced" world such as this is commonly used in entertainment, especially in comic books. Of course, the idea that there could be a population that holds individuals who are always good and bad is ridiculous. We still live in a gray world, where a person can do both harm and good in the same day. A person may accidentally do bad with good intentions, and he or she may do good with bad intentions.

The greatest problem, though, is that no one who is good would desire evil. Evil largely implies selfishness, which is an unyielding focus on personal goals. Those goals do not have to align with the goals of other selfish individuals. In fact, it is normally far easier to achieve such goals when far more people are selfless or average. But this can be a double-edged sword. While there may be less competition, one's actions are likely going to stand out more, which could hamper these goals. Obviously, everyone has personal goals, and you do not have to be selfish to pursue them.

Why do we hold that there has to be evil? One very simple reason is that the good guys would have no one to fight without it, leading to a boring story. Another is that there simply is no human civilization where evil is not present. Still, for these things to be a problem, the author of the story would have to lack imagination. There are still plenty of challenges a person can face when there is no great evil force at work. Life is hard enough, and we do not need to add more problems to the mix. You can experience fear without fearing for your life in a dark alleyway. You can experience betrayal simply through the complexity of shifting loyalties and goals. There is no need for liars and criminals to fill that role.

It is true that society as a whole still lacks an objective definition of what evil is, despite the beliefs of individuals. There is no great example of a place where all are good, but a utopian society would surely hold all of those who would choose goodness, who would choose to serve others. How do societies even reach such an "unbalanced" world? Societies certainly do not evolve into such heavens on earth through a system of economics that promotes selfishness and unyielding competition, nor one that equally distributes poverty. You don't reach a utopia through politics either, certainly not when bureaucrats are bred to be selfish. A quick look at the world will tell you that few truly realize they cannot serve both God and money.

Analysis of the Self: The Circumstances of Service

While it is important to look at things on a case by case basis, people will generally fall into two categories: those who normally accept help and those who do not. Now help can be a vague word. It is normally about aiding a person so that he or she can reach a goal that would be difficult alone, but the subject matter is diverse. In fact, the help could be for something the individual did not know they were struggling with. So the type of help given falls under a few categories, and it is up to the individual if it is welcome or not. They are the following:

1. Solicited help for a known objective.
2. Solicited help for an unknown objective.
3. Unsolicited help for a known objective.
4. Unsolicited help for an unknown objective.

Known objectives are clear goals an individual has or is tasked with. Unknown objectives are unclear issues which need addressing. You may understand the nature of the goal or problem, but cannot pinpoint an exact cause, effect, need or solution. Solicited help is help that is asked for, while unsolicited help is not asked for, but can still be desired.

Naturally, the first kind of help is the easiest to understand. You are attempting to accomplish a specific task, but are unable to do it on your own, so you request aid. The second example is when someone requests help for a vague problem, or a clear problem with an unclear solution. Such issues are usually long-term in nature, as time is often a factor influencing the problem and its solution. The third example is when someone is pursuing a goal on their own and is helped along the way by another. Here, the second person normally has a clear understanding of what the first person is trying to accomplish. The last example is the trickiest, where someone attempts to help another with a problem either one or both cannot pinpoint, using a solution that may not even be appropriate. In this case, even when an objective is cleared, the help becomes labeled as unwelcome.

Of course, all examples of help may not be desired. Pride, or a desire for self-sufficiency, will keep a person from asking or accepting aid. And even when one does ask for help, the person may not be happy about it. A person's attitude may also depend on the exact solution to the problem, and if that solution is undesired, then he or she will certainly be livid when another solves the problem in the perceived negative way (the situation becoming even worse when it is unsolicited help). You cannot always know how a person will react to being helped, and you certainly cannot expect to thanked every time. This is even more clear when you consider that there are at least two different categories of help: performing an action and providing information.

A physical action may be necessary to help someone, but if the solution is only reached through thought, it may require more information. Both forms of help work with the four examples above, creating eight different situations to be analyzed, but there are some general trends. If a physical action is performed on behalf of another, even if it is unsolicited, the person receiving the help will show some form of gratitude (though whether that is genuine or not is another question). However, if information is provided to someone instead, there is a higher chance for dissatisfaction.

Provided information can easily be something a person does not wish to hear. It could be because this person feels they could have come up with the same answer. It could be because it is something they already thought of and are wanting to hear something new. Unsolicited advice/information is most notably something that is frowned upon, and even solicited help may be looked down on if it does not provide a new perspective. A person generally doesn't know if what they provide will actually be accepted, but it is commonplace that the provider feels their attempt to help should be respected. Ultimately, it depends on the relationship between the two before it can be judged who is being improper in such a circumstance. One may feel the need to always give unsolicited advice, and do such automatically without thinking. Another may despise repeated information, and reject anything they have already heard. It should be noted that such possibilities are not reasons to avoid serving others, and are also not reasons for getting angry at those simply trying to aid you. Not all help may be seen in a positive light, but no form of help is absolutely negative either, as one would not offer to help in the first place without any good intentions.

The Burden Series: Self-Sacrifice

Self-sacrifice is a human action that is often looked at favorably. The act is often pursued in order to help someone else. It could be something as simple a sharing a meal, or as serious as sacrificing your own life for another's. As noble as such causes seem, there are many instances where sacrifice simply isn't necessary in order to help someone, unless you include something as small as sacrificing time. There are many instances where the illusion of helpfulness is created, and both parties may fall under this spell.

A good example of this is a person inconveniencing oneself for the sake of another when the only effect is an emotional one for the other party. In other words, an act of self-sacrifice that may be appreciated, but is wholly unnecessary if the other person can cope on their own. For example, a woman decides to go gluten-free, due to health issues, and her husband decides to follow suit. What are the benefits of this? The wife may somehow feel that her burden has been lessened when the husband undergoes the same troubles, but her life does not actually improve. Her meals do not change, so having someone else who is also limited in what they can eat does not make a difference. They will likely be sharing many gluten-free meals anyway, and going to restaurants that offer the right selection of food. The only exception is when there is a lack of storage space.

All the husband is doing by pursuing this lifestyle is reducing the flexibility of his consumption, especially when his wife is not around. There may be long-term health benefits, but it is likely not something the man would pursue alone. This self-sacrifice is a form of emotional support through the bearing of an artificial (self-created) burden. It can also be a tool to understand the plight of another, creating empathy. But the husband should be capable of empathy beforehand, and the wife should not be so childish as to require others to experience her own burdens. While one may think this reduces the number of cravings in the house, it still keeps the husband from enjoying things he loves inside and outside the house. Finally, if the wife is empathetic, she would feel bad for her husband who does not really have to sacrifice things he likes. In other words, this self-sacrifice can be seen as an increase in the suffering of both parties. All the husband really has to do to alleviate the suffering of his wife is buy a greater variety of things she can eat. His own consumption does not harm her, so it does not need to be adjusted.

There are a few things that can be concluded from the above, and a few more points I would like to add. 

1. Self-sacrifice is not all that necessary if the only gain is short-term emotional support, especially if there are other means of helping the other party.
2. Self-sacrifice is unnecessary for the sake of empathy. Though it may act as a means of better understanding another party, it would never be attempted unless some form of empathy or caring existed in the first place. It is especially fruitless if it does not directly help someone else.
3. Service should not be confused with self-sacrifice. Service is a form of love shown to another through the giving of time and energy. Sacrifice, as a form of hampering one's own life, does not produce the same level of spiritual growth that service does. Service should not hurt the giver, nor is it usually an unfair trade in the long-run. Plus, God loves both parties equally, thus desiring the best for both. Self-sacrifice rarely acts as a fair trade. Either one party is helped far more than the other, one party is helped superficially, or there is just increased suffering for one more party – increasing the total suffering of the entire group.
4. The value of self-sacrifice should be analyzed before it is attempted (think cost-benefit analysis). It should not be pursued when the joint suffering of all parties increases. Naturally, the values of the individual are important here, as an analysis of the situation will not help a negative person make a positive decision.
5. If the sacrifice does not reach the intended result, or the effects wane over time, the person should be free to cease the activity. People should not fear stopping an activity which has little benefit for anyone. People perceive such things as a form of abandonment, betrayal or a lack of commitment. None of these instances are true, as it is merely the human pursuing what works best as time passes.
6. Self-sacrifice can be seen as a noble gesture, but is wasted upon those who would not value it. One should not have to sacrifice something for the sake of the ungrateful.

Logic Puzzles: The Concept of Infinity

The concept of infinity is normally something that goes on forever, is infinitely large, or does not have limitations. When applied to a thing, the idea of infinity is limited to the said thing's properties, but alone as a concept, infinity can have several different meanings. Perhaps this is why the concept is commonly misunderstood.

Some properties of infinity that may be overlooked are the following:

1. Infinity does not have to include everything. Something can be infinitely large or repeating, and not include some trait, aspect, dimension, number, idea, etc. This concept can even work with objects, as something can be infinitely large, but only in one particular direction. An object could still be considered infinite if it is only infinitely tall. As long as one measurement keeps going, this adjective can be used (though commonly it would only be used on the particular infinite trait).
2. Infinity can exclude an infinite number of things, so long as that infinity keeps going. A negative infinity may exist with every positive one. For example, an infinite sequence of numbers can skip numbers as it goes, and if this is done at regular intervals, the total numbers being skipped is infinite as well.
3. Infinity can include the same thing, not just once, but an infinite number of times. If thinking of infinite universes (which do not exist), you yourself could be imagining such infinite universes an infinite number of times alongside an infinite number of universes where your planet does not exist.
4. Infinity can include one sole thing or measurement an infinite number of times. This includes an infinite series of 1's, or an eternal repetition of the word "zebra". All that matters is that this repetition continues.
5. Infinity can include finite things as well as infinite things within itself. For example, an array of numbers is created where the first row counts to ten, the second row counts to twenty, the third row lists the decimal numbers of pi, and the fourth row counts by two's an infinite number of times. This array may be seen as infinite since at least one of the rows inside of it is infinitely long, even though some of the other rows are finite in length. The array is also finite in its number of rows, but infinite in its number of columns – meaning both rows and columns are finite in one sense, and infinite in another, each having opposite traits.
6. The existence of infinity can create a problem where there are no limitations in potential, but there are limitations in observed actuals (the opposite can also be true, but is not a problem we could experience due to our limits of observation). If an infinite random number generator could exist, it could run an infinite number of times and never produce the number "46". In fact, it could produce "53" an infinite number of times, excluding an infinite number of numbers. In reality, this is not a limitation in potential states, but a limitation in actual states (and is certainly true when this infinite string follows the progression of time). A limitation in potential states would exist if this could not be so, further putting limits on what is actualized.
7. The finite can influence the infinite, and vice versa. Using the previous example, a random number generator could have infinite potential where all numbers are possible, but can only generate one number. Here again, potentials are infinite while actuals are finite. The opposite form can exist as well, with a random number generator that picks between ten numbers, but runs an infinite number of times. Here, the results are infinite, but the possibilities for each result are finite. Here, the opposing traits limit each other in their expression, creating a quasi-infinite/quasi-finite state as a whole.

Analysis of the Self: The Structure of Self-Validation

Cycle of Action:

goal creation –> goal progression –> consequences (good or bad) –> response to consequences

Response to Behavior:

insecurity over behavior –> reinterpretation of behavior (results vs. intentions) –> rationalization of behavior –> experience of self-validation

Self-Validation Steps:

analyze results and original goal –> decide what to focus on (goal or means to reach goal) –> rationalize past or future actions

Expanded Cycle of Action:

reception of stimuli –> perception of stimuli –> use of stimuli (goal formation) –> will formation –> stimuli creation (goal progression) –> reception of new stimuli –> perception of new stimuli –> insecurity –> reinterpretation of stimuli, goals and goal progression –> rationalization of action –> experience of self-validation


Insecurity:

The desire for self-validation ultimately stems from a person's beginning insecurity. This can grow slowly over time or appear in an instant. The most common reasons for insecurity are the existence of unintended consequences from one's behavior and the lack of positive results. What insecurity does is trigger an evaluation of behavior through the feeling of uneasiness and the desire to follow certain goals without failure.

Reinterpretation:

In the reinterpretation step, results are analyzed, but this step is partly done through the reaction to the effects of the behavior. If results do not correlate with intentions, then one must decide if the intentions or the results are more important in this instance. If intent is more important, then the human partakes in rationalization. If different effects are more valuable, the human will attempt to change future behavior to reach these desired effects, possibly requiring a rationalization of a new type of behavior before it is attempted.

The first example of self-validation is an adjustment to one's goals, goal being the rationalization of past behavior. The second form of self-validation is an adjustment of how one reaches one's goals. Self-validation exists as validating either one's ends or as one's means, and the need to validate ends is usually a more emotional response (as it involves accepting one's emotions) while the validation of means is more a task of logic. We can either validate ourselves by acknowledging and approving of our past behavior, or approving of our future behavior. The big difference is that the latter acts as a form of self-correction, while the former can act as a way to correct others through self-defense.

Rationalization:

People can self-validate through the rationalization of both previous behavior and future self-correcting behavior, but they cannot be done at once. Part of the rationalization stage is the analysis of past or present behavior, which is used to figure out whether such behavior is good or bad, right or wrong. It is not used to figure out what steps should be taken in the future, as the thought process for this is different. It is not the same as figuring out what should have been done originally. In fact, a common conclusion of rationalization is that such steps aren't needed at all, that previous actions were justifiable.

This is an example of emotional self-preservation that satisfies the desire to be right, but what can occur as a result is that one's original goals are abandoned or become unobtainable due to the lack of corrected behavior. If changing one's actions is necessary to reach a goal, then a new instance of reinterpretation and rationalization must occur, which likely never will occur without that feeling of insecurity. That feeling of insecurity will not reappear unless the individual remains dedicated to the said goal over time.

Rationalization can occur for both the past and the future. It is also possible during present action, but would exist as part of a different model due to the lack of results from the behavior. People do not usually rationalize current behavior unless previous examples of that behavior exist. People can and often will rationalize what they believe they will do in the future (they have already formed the will to pursue it), and the rationalization of future options can also occur before any decision has been made. Neither necessarily mean that the person will follow through with the behavior, though, as one can easily be interrupted during this process by the environment or other people.

Even if such actions are not yet grounded in reality, it is important to form a distinction between moments when one rationalizes an option and when one rationalizes an option already decided on. If the decision comes before the options are compared, it is more an aftereffect of the first form of self-validation: the validation of ends. If the decision comes after the options are compared, it is a part of the second form of self-validation: the validation of means.

Self-Validation:

Self-validation, as stated, deals with both means and ends. Validating a past means is how a person figures out that their action was correct, and that there is no need to change behavior. Validating a future means is how a person decides the best way to correct a past mistake, at least in the model used. If occurring during goal creation, this is simply a part of the decision-making process. Validating an end can also be a part of the decision-making process, but as a result of action, it exists as someone concluding that they were not mistaken in their behavior as it was driven by positive intentions, even if it did not produce a positive outcome. The difference between the validation of an end and a past means is that the validation of an end does not put emphasis on future means, while the validation of a past means emphasizes that future means are not needed to correct something.