New Ideas: Ideals and Reality, Part Four

I find that curiosity is at its core the desire to discover truth. Yet, I also find that the more truth becomes uncovered, the harder it is to continue with the same unfocused curiosity that got us to this very place. Information overload rings a bell, as there is a certain limit to where a human can specialize. Discoveries, especially new ones, have to come from those who have developed a specialty in that field, but as we travel further toward the essence of the truth we strive for, we forget ever more about the world around us. To continue being curious over our original drives, we have to abandon what we used to know. We have to forget our childlike senses, and embrace a harsh reality where we cannot know the answer, and as we reach closer to one solution, others become ever more distant.

The truth we often seek becomes ever more specialized. We find facts and experiences that do not quite accomplish what we seek, no matter how minor the differences. The more we care, the less we can care about. Yet to avoid fixation completely abandons both curiosity and discovery, and discovery should be what drives our evolution in mind, spirit, and body. It must be held that absolute truth, though remaining as the anchor of our own pursuits, is simply unobtainable by a single individual in a single lifetime.

The question then concerns the value of relative truth, a value which cannot be equally judged among the many, for such judgements would come from others who also abandoned flexibility for focus, a focus that most likely differs entirely from the subject at hand. And even if such a conglomerate is excluded, what then? We are left with those who either chose to focus on anything and everything, or those who chose nothing, and neither of these kinds of people would possess the expertise to rate the value of the relative truth a chosen few have so tirelessly pursued. So we are left at a standstill. To reach for a truth that approaches the absolute, we must abandon a perspective that respects that which we do not search for – all while a perspective that appropriately gauges all relative truth, or seemingly supernal truth, cannot exist. In truth, diverse people will hold diverse opinions about both different and seemingly similar things.

We cannot know all things, for it is hard enough to know one thing, and even if we could know about everything we could discover, there can be no real consensus on the value of such discoveries or the various truths they uncover. Thus, even if the human race had the same level of curiosity existing within each individual (which is impossible), the developing fixation could never be expressed in the same way. Discoveries may become similar when we each develop similar drives, but the relative truth derived from those discoveries can only be appropriately valued by those with the original experience of them, and there could still be a lack of agreement among those in a single field.

We will defend the truths we have either uncovered or created for ourselves, and when we fail to discover anything else, we will spend our time discrediting the ideas of others with similar experiences. And worse yet, if another with an entirely different background is in disagreement with the conclusion of our curiosity, then we lash out against them and all people who exist outside of our walled-in existence. How dare those foreign to our area of proficiency cast doubt on us because of their own lack of understanding. Such is curiosity for all the wrong reasons! Instead, we must shine light on our areas of knowledge, and toil away as we attempt to represent the value such experiential truths hold for us. After all, if we hold enough sway, a new childlike mind will direct its focus upon our work, and become fixated on the unknowable.

Logic Puzzles: Possibility and its Usage in Language

"Anything is possible." It is a common phrase that is used when one wishes to acknowledge the existence of other possibilities. The problem is that "anything" is not possible. To truly accept this is to destabilize the foundation of all human knowledge. While it is indeed true that many facts rely on assumptions as a foundation to build upon, discrediting all foundations is equivalent to eradicating the value of information, knowledge, and learning. It declares all truth unobtainable by mankind. And, of course, such a philosophy can only be regarded as a belief, because it would be contradictory to have a truth that discredits all truth. Truth must be compatible with itself.

The idea that anything is possible leads us to the idea that none of us can know about anything – the idea that all thoughts, affirmations, or assertions cannot exist in the realm of certainty. While this puts truth on the ultimate pedestal, it also makes it unreachable. And when something cannot be found, you might find people who lose interest in the idea of discovering it. Now the general idea does not go about vilifying any particular belief, or beliefs in general, nor does it reproach man's desire to not believe something. In fact, the philosophy itself does not cause too many issues itself because there exist a great number of cases where mankind cannot know the answer. However, it does man a great disservice whenever an individual or a group uses it 1) for the excuse to abandon discovery, or 2) to accept improbable causes or effects on the same scale as probable ones.

Yet this post is not about this philosophy, per se. It is more about accepting the broad idea within the confines of a single case of circumstantial ignorance. Just because you yourself do not know whether a fact is actually true or probable, that does not mean you should accept the potentiality of absolutely anything. It is a case of temporarily adopting a philosophy in order to explain away one's lack of information or logic. This means, that through the usage of a simple phrase, one ignorantly believes an idea when the foundation previously required to establish such an idea is not present. Not even the values of the philosophy and the individual are compared. It is simply a lapse in judgment we all have at some point when trying to communicate.

The simple solution? Instead of saying anything is possible, say that you could be wrong, or that something specific is unknowable.

Analysis of the Self: Wisdom vs. Vision

The intellectual struggles for people are often split between the attempt to be wise, and the attempt to become a visionary. Both of these traits, wisdom and vision, are both exemplary and complimentary. However, this means the lack of one can make the other unsatisfactory to some degree.Vision without wisdom and wisdom without vision each create unique pitfalls for the individual, so it is imperative that if one means to use one trait, the lack of a complimentary trait must be identified before action is taken.

What is wisdom? It is having the combination of experience, knowledge, and good judgement. Experience is the foundation of this trait, because with experience naturally comes knowledge, and hopefully, improved judgement. Wisdom is all about learning as you live, and then taking what you have accumulated to create a method of thinking and doing. Life lessons can be extracted from personal events as well as facts, so experience ultimately guides what information a person possesses, as well as how an individual uses said information.

What is vision? It is being able to envision probable potentials, especially relating to one’s behavior or goals. The ability to envision what we should do points us in the right direction. It also enables us to select the stimuli that is most important so that we know what to react to and how. Vision acts as a kind of knowledge. It influences our judgment of both the present and future, and is impacted by past experience.

Vision without wisdom is like a fruitless idealism. You may take action toward a specific end you actually have no hope of reaching, or your actions could create unforeseen circumstances. It is the same with possessing knowledge without experience or good judgment skills. The right information (or goal) is there, but the person just doesn't know what to do with it or how to progress.

Wisdom without vision implies one often knows what is best in the present moment, but preparing for the future is rather difficult. Too many possibilities seem real or relevant. It can also be difficult to make progress on one’s goals, especially if they are more long-term. A lack of vision is similar to a lack of knowledge, which means there is ignorance. However, a wise person often takes such ignorance into account as well, so there may not be a reduction in judgment, but direction. It just depends on what goals and circumstances are involved.

Both of these qualities have an impact on how an individual reacts to the determiners of choice. Wisdom, for instance, may create a heavy focus on details, most commonly values, though any specific category could become important depending on the situation. However, vision relates heavily to goal progression, so things such as time and growth have a big influence. Values also impact the original goal of the individual, so such could frequently impact decisions as well. Ultimately, both are very similar, as each is a quality that influences the decision-making process in a positive way. Wisdom is more so the ability to deal with events as they come, while vision foresees the events beforehand. However, wisdom deals with so much more than just environmental or social changes, so such a comparison is only cursory.

Obtaining wisdom is not too difficult, provided the individual is an avid thinker. However, it seems like such thinking makes seeing the bigger picture more difficult, especially when trying to know how that picture will look in the future. Thinking about all one does implies there is a high probability of learning from said actions. The more this happens, the more you know about yourself, and the better your judgement becomes. This is not universally true, as you may still make poor decisions in an area you are unfamiliar with, but wisdom indicates you are properly using the information available to you. Vision, on the other hand, is closer to extrapolating information, and knowing how the reality of such a projection will change the physical, mental, or spiritual landscape.

Analysis of the Self: Time in Relation to Decisions

The relative value of time is dependent on the goals of the individual. Increments of time will often be valued less if more time is needed to reach a goal, as the increment of time the goal gets pushed back is small compared to the total amount of time needed to reach it. The reverse is true as well. If the time needed (or if the time remaining) to reach a goal is short, then very few distractions will be allowed.

Time is also valued differently depending on the importance of the goal in question (or how troublesome or difficult it is). Progressing on important goals often becomes the primary use of one’s time, just as unimportant goals become more long-term, eventual affairs. The same is likely true for unclear goals. What this means is that we are more often distracted when a clear objective is not before us. If a person does not know how to properly use their time, he or she will instead create new and easier goals to spend time progressing on, even if they are clearly less important from an objective standpoint.

The point is that we are often driven to do something, even when it is not clear what that something should be. Validating our actions later is easy, because all we need to do is compare our actions to doing nothing. Of course, there is no guarantee that such behavior is really constructive, just as there is no assurance that future actions will be either. We may get distracted for some other reason, or we might fail at a task completely.

As time exists as a determiner of choice, it must fight other motivations or values. If our primary concerns were about guaranteed effectiveness rather than presumed efficiency, then the actions of our entire race would differ. Yet time is an ongoing component of temporal life. It holds its own value just as our own interests do. We cannot pursue interests without time, so an interest of ours becomes making time, or at least utilizing it well.

Time is invaluable, but only because it is so scarce. This scarcity exists as part of our temporal nature, but is also impacted by all we wish to accomplish within a time frame. However, this does not mean time is valued properly, because in order to judge this resource correctly, we must know what our goals should actually be. Time is not important so long as our goals are not important. Future time is valued by future goal progression, just as past time is valued by our accomplishments. This is our subjective perspective of how time is valued as a resource. An objective stance would require knowledge of the best usage of time in every situation. Then, one could truly know how much a segment of time could possibly be worth. Naturally, such knowledge requires unlimited foresight, seeing the ongoing repercussions from a continuous stream of action. Since this is impossible, we estimate the impacts of our decisions, and we only do so for the amount of time that appears needed. Thus, we are caught in an ongoing struggle in our decision making: "For how long do I consider the consequences, and at what point does my questioning worsen the situation?"

To summarize, time exists as a determiner of choice because it limits both our choices and our ability to make choices. It is valued based on the choices available, our ability to progress toward goals, and how much we desire making the right decision.

New Ideas: Ideals and Reality, Part Three

When I think of a world such as this, I grow despondent. We are primarily selfish beings because selfishness commonly benefits the individual on a physical level. We create economies and philosophies that thrive off of this behavior, and then call on an aggregate force to reign in on the terror some would create for others. The ideal is to use money taken from others and use it to alter the world we live in, often combating the very selfishness we ourselves perpetuate.

The ideals of government are grand, yes, just as the ideals of freedom are. But in a world with imperfect people with selfish desires, we find ourselves with poor uses of both government and freedom. So we develop a mindset that favors one over the other, mainly to create a scapegoat for our poor state of existence, using the opposite force to combat what we detest. All of us urge the government to reduce freedoms we dislike, and all of us reduce the power of the government in order to create certain opportunities we do like. It is a tug of war between the selfish interests of society.

There is a reoccurring theme of order versus chaos. People see society as if it existed on such a scale, but that scale is simply a great oversimplification of the combined action of all present individuals. Self-governance never exists in these polarizing scenarios, simply because you cannot have both order and freedom when a large majority of a particular society acts on selfish impulses. One need not be evil to be part of the problem, but ignorant, and ignorance abounds in the human race. So does mediocrity, as well as complacency and laziness.

Humanity does not currently exist as a race that focuses on the ideal state. Few can even agree what such a state would be, let alone act on such beliefs. So we do not know what to believe, what to fight for, and when we do take that leap into action, it is often against others who faced different challenges and arrived at a different solution. So then, by focusing on our problems, we focus on those who reject our solutions, and suddenly humans become expendable. In our desire to make the world a better place, we destroy each other, and that is because selfishness has always ruled our very nature.

New Ideas: Ideals and Reality, Part Two

Every decision we make is life altering. The questions are how great, and if life is being altered in the right way. We all hold an ideal image of who we want to be, and what circumstances of life we want to be in. It is a shame that, through our daily decisions and challenges, we rarely get closer to that image. Some might say our expectations are too high, but I believe society simply isn’t structured to make us the best we can be. It is structured so that we can survive, provided we are willing to put in the effort, and sometimes, just get lucky. But for a Son of God, simply surviving holds little meaning. Sure, it is true that one would rather exist than to not exist, but existence itself loses its flavor when there is so much out there we could be doing for ourselves, or for others.

How do we measure this pathway from our current lives to our ideals? We hardly have the time to map out every decision life throws at us. The causes of every choice made, the consequences of deciding, and the near-infinite possibilities we could create for ourselves – it is a lot to take in. But to simply live, to exist, does not make life livable. After all, the challenges of life still exist, and overcoming those challenges is a requirement for survival. Highs must follow the lows. Solving problems must bring with it rewards. Without light to shine on our darkness, we seek deliverance through nonexistence (at least temporarily).

Living truly has little to offer without a sense of progression following us in our age. This is why stagnation can be so suffocating. It is why cabin fever creeps under our skin, as we feel we must go out and explore when the opportunity suddenly disappears. The appearance of a stagnant lifestyle, or even a day where nothing noteworthy appears before us, strikes a sudden fear in our hearts. It is because at that moment, we stare into the eyes of our greater self, the self we had imagined ourselves to become. We realize that we cannot become what we imagine, and that we never really got closer to our ideal selves as life soldiered on. We just lived. We took what life gave us and ran with it, hoping that someday, things would improve. We trusted society to clear the way for us, to make our path visible, to highlight the choices needed to not just survive, but thrive in a world that has always been unforgiving. Society is a construct made up of fearful people, putting their trust in one another to ignore the darkness eating them inside. A darkness that becomes once more familiar as we have no choice but to validate past decisions.

No one can create a clear trajectory – that is obvious. No one understands the world enough that they can know where they will end up and why. We are all born with dreams, we are all given dreams, and we are all creators of dreams, but most assuredly, we are the mourners of dreams. If anything is to die, it is the dreams we lose grasp of as we live and grow. The ones we decided to ignore, as we either determined they were childish, or simply became impossible feats as we faced the reality that we became not as we wanted. So our dreams change – our ideals change – to something that is more manageable. Just being a little bit better than who we are becomes the goal, and as even that becomes unattainable, then maintaining the norm is enough. Stagnation becomes our sanctuary, and it is there and then that we find value in simply living. As it turns out, that value alone is meaningless.

Analysis of the Self: The Development of Evil

I have been thinking about the different variations of evil, and was looking for a primal cause. Some say greed is the root of all evil, but greed first requires human selfishness, and is often triggered by fear. The causes of fear are too diverse, and will likely exist even in a perfect society, so this is just a secondary cause. We must then take the primary issue, selfishness, and look at how it is created. When I did this, I remembered that it can be seeded to some degree in genetics, and it can be learned through experience. I also noted that both of these influence one another, so both must be addressed. Evil is technically caused by improper thinking, but such thinking also has its origins.

So in essence, evil has two beginning roots in human beings: genetics and experience. Genetics can either restrict or expand a human’s potential, impacting how we think, feel, and create. It grants us a specific level of intelligence and health that we must work with. Experience (or the lack of) impacts what we know and understand. It also has an influence on our character, our emotional intelligence, and our levels of ignorance.

Experience dictates how much higher our potentials can be, while genetics puts a cap on these potentials in the long-run. Both influence human growth and personality unification, but genetics ultimately influences the rate of growth we receive from experience. When we discuss evil, what we are truly looking at is selfishness in thought. It acts as a counterforce to goodness, but can ultimately make a being ignore truth and beauty as well. This trait is often triggered by one’s own experiences (which can include a lack of education), but the underlying traits or limitations of the being indicate either what types of experiences create such behavior, or how much learning is required for such behavior to be rooted out.

How is evil minimized in human society? It requires the multifaceted approach of improving our genes, changing how we educate ourselves, and improving the experiences of individuals. Not one of these actions alone will do the trick, because either the potentials of humans will remain just as restricted by DNA, or we will fail to change the very elements of life that shape who we are and how we grow. It must also be said that such adjustments to society do not create results at the same rate, nor is every change appear positive at first.

The Burden Series: Trust

Trust is something that is commonly valued throughout life, whether in the home, at work, or in general social situations. The heart of trust is the belief that an individual shares a common value. Even when that trust exists as relying on someone to follow a responsibility, you are trusting that accomplishing such a task is valued by the other party. The problem with trust is that even when the subject is only one human being, that trust cannot be universal. It is usually very specific.

Humans do not all share the same values, and universal trust between two individuals would imply that each shares the exact same morals, and even the same mores. But in reality, even when there is a strong commonality between individuals, circumstances and goals shift. While one person might feel betrayed about another’s decision, the other may just be following a higher priority. To trust an individual is thus a set of values you expect another to follow under certain situations. This is truly limiting and vague, which should tell us that no one should trust others completely, because such belief or faith does not account for a wide enough set of circumstances.

Instead of blindly trusting friends, family, or coworkers, we should trust each other to make certain relevant decisions. The foundation of trust is then the circumstances of the decisions a person is faced with. So long as the personal values of an individual create dependable results, you can trust that individual to take certain actions, and that is really where the trust ends. Of course, the boundaries of this trust are going to be different for each individual, and it is each person’s responsibility to identify these boundaries on their own.

This also changes how we look at people we do not trust, because instead of labeling a person with the negative trait of untrustworthy, we instead identify areas where we either expect problems in the decision-making process, or a conflict of values or interest. The point is that being trustworthy is not the same as being a good person, and vice versa. You cannot expect to satiate the ideals of everyone, especially if you intend to be genuine. Everyone has a different idea of what trust means to them, and this meaning is hardly communicated properly when we depend on others. We then suffer as a result of our own assumptions, something that could have been avoided by adjusting how we perceive human relationships.

The Burden Series: Careers and Money

The ascension career can be likened to the spiritual path of the mortal, though the scale in time is much larger. It is a measurement of spiritual growth, as well as a growth in work capabilities. The ascension career exists as the combination of learning, work, rest, and the personal developments gained therein. The spiritual life of an individual more closely resembles this, as it is all about reaching a state of being that is greater than the sum of its parts. Spirituality elevates man above the elements of normal life, beyond both the outward and inward observations of human identity and experience. It is about an expansion of future potential and its realization, to say the least. It also brings man on the path of greater expressions of truth, beauty and goodness.

Since our journey through the morontia spheres toward Havona is described as a career, many may liken it to an earth career, though smaller in scale. However, a work career is often about public life, not personal life. More so, it is about labor and making money. This money is then used for survival, safety, and pleasure. There are other uses for money, of course, but these are the common uses. Work is most certainly necessary for life, unless one has a large inheritance.

Careers are the overall trend of work performed, and they are lopsided. They do not create an accurate picture of a person, as they do not always capture what a human does to learn or relax. Growth accumulates in these three areas of life, yet only part of such is used to measure a person's worth in a society. Labor involves the social life of the individual. It records how one interacts with others in society. A good career is an important goal, because there is so much clear value seen within it, but it is not the only valuable thing attainable.

One need not a good job in order to find self-validation in life, nor happiness. It is not the temporal career that should have focus, but the future work of ascension. And if the attainment of wealth becomes the primary goal of the mortal, he or she will not only leave the earth poor in physical wealth, but spiritual wealth as well. All that can be taken beyond is stored within the soul to be resurrected, and what remains with the individual is the accumulation of spiritual value created within the life that is lived.

To understand this value, remember what was said of spirituality. This is the value that determines the future potentials of the being. It also reflects how close to perfection one currently is, and the possible speed one can reach relative perfection as well. What was not learned in mortal life must be learned later, and likely at a slower pace than what was possible before death. Yet this future life of ascension and learning cannot be the sole concern of the mortal. After all, one cannot gain wisdom during mortal life if one does not survive for very long. Clearly, people must work to support themselves, and in balance with the personal evolution of thought and spirit. Money cannot remain as the prime reason for service or for life, as it retards the future progress of the personality. An individual should serve others out of love, and receive money as payment for expenses. However, if this is not the motivation, such funds will likely be used as fuel for an individual's selfish desires, and one cannot serve both God and money.

Analysis of the Self: Identity and Being

So what is identity, exactly? It is often used synonymously with either personality or being, but it is neither. Identity is both an objective and subjective construct that defines and categorizes an individual. Identity is a part of being, as well as personality, which also shapes identity. All remain a single construct that helps define self, the unification of which, requiring all three elements, as well as many more.

Objective:

A person’s identity is a creation of who a person is, what they do, what they think, etc. It is both a person’s status and the totality of their life records on High. At bare minimum, one is identified as a free will creature. The identity of a free will being requires the existence of a personality received by the Father. Identity itself requires existence. Future status (or a possible change in status) is also a part of identity, making someone mortal or immortal. All in all, objective identity consists of the various facts of existence – truths that are not altered by perspective.

Subjective:

A person’s identity is both an outward and inward perspective of self, thus making identity perceived being. Subjective identity progresses and regresses. It changes with the circumstances of the individual, as well as everyone else. This is a direct contradiction to personality, which is a permanence in the presence of change, so identity can change when personality does not. It is also important to note that since identity acts as part of the totality of a being, “being” is largely a subjective term as well. Thus, a person’s total being is adjusted along with identity, as there are changes in perception and experience. All in all, identity can be both existential and experiential in expression.

We have now more or less established what creates identity, so what are all of the contributing factors for being? They are likely the following:

Personality
Mind
Soul
Body
Identity
Circumstance
Knowledge
Wisdom
Growth
Experience
History
Goals
Opportunity/Potentials
Inopportunity/Non-potentials
Physical Environment
Social Environment

Analysis of the Self: The Measure of Worth

How is worth measured? Things are often valued when they help one reach a goal. That is how the common value of things is derived. This value may be determined by a mean’s efficiency. It could be an issue of flexibility, with the option of multiple means or multiple ends at once. It could also be the new existence of a means, or the first way of reaching an end previously unobtainable. When worth is defined by usefulness, it is subjective in that each person has different goals, as well as preferred methods of reaching such goals. Thus, the perceived utility involved here is a product of human will, as it is that will that must be aligned with the purpose of the object for the thing in question to be valued. Of course, such worth can be ascribed to both tangible and intangible things.

Worth is likely seen much differently when the subject is a human being. Those who value humans based on usefulness do not actually value humans as living creatures, but as moving objects. Beyond this value is that which is brought about by personal affection – love. Such love is going to be relative in one sense or another. Even unconditional love is going to be finite to humans, but this very love is what goes beyond judging worth by potential and empirical data.

How is worth seen within the self? This is also relative, and can exist as both a measurement of utility and a love of the self. Neither are particularly bad so long as they are not distorted. Measuring the worth of one’s role in society is going to require a cost-benefit analysis. Measuring the value of one’s existence on its own is rooted in personal love (though an understanding of God’s love for the individual is also important when incorporating an objective point of view). When imbalanced, the former can either curtail the total value of something or overlook the value of existence altogether. On the other hand, the latter is capable of inflating the value of something completely, especially in comparison to something else.

The ego is essentially a feeling or representation of personal worth. What the ego does is perpetuate identity and the value therein. It is essential when circumventing the problems existent when a person is outwardly undervalued, but it can also make selfless behavior, a product of love for others, a much rarer event. A balanced ego is tantamount to creating a sensible measurement of worth for things, ideas, and people. Otherwise, things may not seem good enough for the self, ideas not good enough when not originating within, and people not good enough in comparison to the individual in question.

New Ideas: Ideals and Reality

All can be organized by associated values, but not all values may be known. Some are known, some are deduced, some are experienced, and some will remain unknowable. The unknowable is truly a statement about our inability to perceive, a reflection of our nature hiding in the abyss. Yet the unknown can be pursued, and the known will be validated or invalidated in return. However, if the known is unchanging, and we hold this to be optimal, then we have created our own prison.

Let us consider one of the more basic of necessities. Light is valuable, but this value is not always appreciated to the fullest extent. To fix this, there must be darkness, as darkness brings greater value to the light.  However, while the appreciation for light from the experience of darkness is an ideal state, the darkness itself is not. Darkness must then be temporal – a temporary challenge to give the individual a greater understanding of how good light can be.

There must be a distinction between two opposites or two unlike qualities, and this distinction must be felt within our very bones. It must divide our senses and split the sky of possibility, raining down upon us the realization that reality has changed to its core. Our perception cannot be clouded. We must see the clouds for what they are, a frame to rightly position our true desires, and the values they represent. The bursts of light hidden beyond the clouds that flash in our minds like wildfire.

The revelation is that experience is a double-edged sword, and rightly so. Yet, while the danger acts as a precursor to precious things, it is not valuable in and of itself. Only through the potential of its existence, and our acknowledgement of that potential, does the pain hold any real worth. Reality is fresh, wonderful, cruel, and frightening. The potentials may breed the longing for cessation – escape – but in accepting the reality for what it is, our minds can see the truth. A new prize has been gifted, and we experience the joy of its discovery as we save it for later use, when newer revelation can be uncovered and compared, or when the old becomes the most valuable of realities, stagnation becoming a welcome home.

A newer perspective is bound to be greater than the last, perhaps not in depth, but in breadth, surely, as this new reality is built upon the old foundations. But newness will always hold the potential of stagnation when the potential of change is present. The absence of new potentials – ever-present stasis – makes reality absolute in expression, and inescapable through its unqualified nature. There is no  growth or regression. There is only inertia. However, we know that such lethargy can only be felt as true when there is indeed something just beyond the horizon.

Newness is always a possibility for the temporal expressions of man, but whether the change, or its utter lack, is noticed is a different matter. This is subjective perception at its roots, yet all circumstantial viewpoints hold the same three possibilities – progression, regression, or stagnation – all products of causation. No particular state needs to be an ideal on its own, as all states can appear as a fresh experience. Existence within a cage grants credence to the value of life outside of it. All states are elements of a much grander destiny, one that lies beyond the realization that we must be the change we seek.

Newness cannot be constrained as an element of tangible things or intangible ideas. It must remain as a constant ideal itself, existing as discovery that can never remain complete. The adventure of new dimensions of understanding, the dream of exploration and the dreams to follow, will take us beyond the gray world of conflicting certainty and belief, and most assuredly above the egotistical praise of personal circumstance. It is in the desire for the object where our true desire should lie. We should desire to desire, and in presenting this idea to a fallen world, we become ever closer to the unknowable truth we seek, evolving our ability to perceive as a species despite the darkness of the abyss.