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.

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.

Logic Puzzles: Dimensional Struggles

The common concept of dimensions is a work of fantasy, but before I get ahead of myself, let's define the subject. Paraphrasing from merriam-webster:

1. a (1): measure in one direction; specifically : one of three coordinates determining a position in space or four coordinates determining a position in space and time (2): one of a group of properties whose number is necessary and sufficient to determine uniquely each element of a system of usually mathematical entities (as an aggregate of points in real or abstract space); a parameter or coordinate variable assigned to such a property (3): the number of elements in a basis of a vector space
   b: the quality of spatial extension
   c: a lifelike or realistic quality
   d: the range over which or the degree to which something extends
   e: one of the elements or factors making up a complete personality or entity
2. any of the fundamental units (as of mass, length, or time) on which a derived unit is based; also : the power of such a unit
3. a level of existence or consciousness


I hold no qualms regarding the use of "dimension" as a word for a measurement. I think this is what the word should strictly remain as. It is an aspect of something that is quantitatively measurable. Even using the word to describe the qualitative aspect of something is okay if this is not mixed with a quantitative value that also uses this word. The issue is the creation of a system that poorly combines different concepts that are not cohesive. So naturally I see issues when someone uses the third definition listed (a level of existence), and uses another definition inside of it (the physical measurement of something).

What is the issue? Well, the problem is that theories concerning the dimensions of reality include the dimensions of space as well as entirely different concepts, some of which are not quantitative. The misuse of "dimensions" is done by both scientists and those claiming to have knowledge of metaphysics, or those who identify with the new age. This is not about specific ideas exactly, but about the fundamental problem in the language used in discussing the dimensions of physical reality, or dimensions separate or above that reality.

If the language on dimensions has to do with consciousness, then what is being talked about are the dimensions of reality we are conscious of. The first three are the dimensions of space, which gives us the 3rd dimension. A higher dimension, say a 4th or 5th dimension, would mean there are more aspects of reality for one to become aware of. There is little wrong with that unless it is not stated what those things are.

Of course, we normally use the word "dimension" in measurement or observation, as mentioned above. The other usage as a separate reality is borrowed with the involved rhetoric, which combines both ideas into one. This is normally confusing though, since adding dimensions onto length, width, height or depth indicates there is something else for you to physically measure. Stacking entirely different concepts onto the concept of measuring space is problematic, especially if it becomes something you don't normally measure/calculate.

So what would be a fifth dimensional reality? Well, if concepts are being grouped together correctly, the additional dimensions are things we can quantify. Many potentials are quantifiable, so knowing one's potentials can technically be considered a measurement of possibility. This is similar to looking ahead through time, which does operate through space, so it can counts as a type of space measurement. Another possible addition to reality is the idea of value, but this is not normally quantifiable, it is a qualitative trait. The value would have to be in a certain number of something. However, if one brings frequency or a vibration rate into the picture, this could be both quantitative and qualitative in nature.

So my guess is if you were to "enter" this 5th dimension, it means you instinctively know your set of potentials at any given time (within a certain free will causality window) and measure the vibration of yourself, others, or your environment. Perhaps you could also combine those two traits, and know how your potentials will affect the vibration of everything around you. Let's be clear though, this is not morontia reality. That is something entirely different, and I have little idea how morontia physics work. Plus, with the morontia form, people gain new senses, but we aren't told what many of them are. Maybe my two guesses are included as extra senses, but it doesn't matter. The point is that quantifying one's perspective, which is really a qualitative experience, doesn't usually work when you are missing the "Rosetta Stone" needed to understand the material. Most new age material lacks this, and is void of consistency.

These matters do not improve much in the realm of science, as time itself is seen as a dimension of reality. While it could be considered as such, the dimension of time does not include the potentials of time. Potentials are created and actualized by will within space and through time. Even though potentials exist in the sense that they can influence our behavior, they do not exist as part of reality. At best, they exist in the realm of thought, or the universal mind, but this is still not an objective dimension of physical reality. They would not be potentials if they truly existed in the physical world.

I see all dimensions as facets of observation, whether the observer is God or man. It is just a means through which we can define reality, that which we do understand and that which we do not. I can say that time is a dimension of experience, or that taste is a dimension of food. Ultimately, it's the same thing. You're taking a part of your observation and defining it in order to create continuity between persons and things. To me though, dimensions will always be measurements of actuals. Others can create their own ideas on how reality is structured, but that system will depend on their observations.

Morontia reality could be seen as its own separate dimension, but it is not. It exists within space as well, and can be impacted by observable forces (gravity for instance). Architectural spheres are made of normal matter, and the morontia buildings sitting on top do not sink through the ground or float in the air. They influence and are influenced by what we call physical reality. The realm of spirit may also be looked at as its own dimension, but spirit still works within space and time. The rules are different, but it is not separated from the time-space universe. Instead, it is deeply integrated.

Dimensions are broad categories of observable aspects of reality, but these dimensions follow certain rules, and there may be another aspect of reality that ignores these dimensions or rules. For instance, many higher spirits simply cannot see the physical realm that we see unless aided. From their perspective, the dimensions of reality are different as their observations of reality are different, and the same is true for us. There is simply a limit to our ability of measuring and defining what exists, whether it be quantitative or qualitative.

Logic Puzzles: Extremists, Goals, and Positive Change

Many are confronted with the idea of extremism when they watch the news, or get updated on current events through some means. Extremism, especially of the religious kind, gets a spotlight, certainly when these issues occur on the other side of the globe. Few understand that these extremists are a minority, no matter what manner of faith they claim to hold onto. Even if you group up all such people of all religions, they do not represent the evil in the world, nor a majority.

Extremism is not limited to religion. It exists in religion, politics, business, war, and far more. It is about pursuing a cause so far as to make the end justify the means. It is about changing or ignoring your morals (or the higher morals of others) in order to get what you want. The reckless pursuit of goals is what this is all about, and it is a trait so broad that it goes beyond harming other people. To be labeled an extremist, one usually requires long-term dedication toward a particular goal, or uses means that are a cause for concern. There are both long-term and short-term extremists.

A long-term extremist is usually labeled as such when an unnecessary amount of time has been spent in the pursuit of their goal. It is considered unnecessary when the approach is short-sighted or has lost its effectiveness. Another example would be doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. A short-term extremist can be labeled as such when their support for a cause is quickly problematic, though their approach may not change for a long period as well. Short-term extremists can become long-term extremists, though it is not always the case that long-term extremists cause problems in the short-run.

Extremism is a trait often practiced when people believe they are more important than others. It can exist when one's goals appear greater than another person's. Extremism can exist when one goal outshines all others. It can be when all other goals cease to exist. Taking things to the extreme means one fails to account for the relativity of the goal or cause. It is the failure to account for exceptions to one's own perspective. This lack in judgement can exist for a few seconds, or it can last for years, but no matter the duration, it is something that is actually quite common in society. Whether you are cheating on a math test, shoving people in a crowded store on Black Friday, or mugging others in order to pay a hospital bill, you are practicing a form of extremism.

So how does one reduce extremism in society? Focusing on removing examples of it is not a long-term solution. What counteracts extremism in the long-run is a lasting antithesis. In other words, it is a lasting example of the same goal being achieved through better means, or it is proof that a goal cannot be met, especially with the means taken by the extremist in question.

Reducing the capability for extremism to appear is one thing, spending all of one's resources on hunting down extremism is another. The latter is in itself is a form of extremism. This means that only focusing on the evil in the world in order to remove said evil does not rid the world of evil. In order to not become what you stand against, there must be an even greater amount of effort put towards creating good.

If a single cause is being pursued via different means (both positive and negative), then one should focus more on boosting the positive than fighting the negative. Fixating oneself on tempered positive change is a way of resisting the extreme, the negative and the barbaric. One must remember that resources are always limited, and if so much is wasted on combating evil or error, than not enough can be spent on positive means toward positive causes. You cannot tip the scale in your favor if all you ever do is remove the other person's weights. Your cause soon becomes balance, but that balance is a representation of the status quo in the real world, and problems do not not normally solve themselves.

Analysis of the Self: The Logic of Reasoning, the Experience of Stimuli

Seeing is believing. Well, not necessarily. Believing is a thing of personal choice, and the eye can be deceptive. The body's senses can be broken down into bits of information, and it is up to the individual to understand the context of that information. If the context is misunderstood, an incorrect inference will likely form. This post is not just about the philosophical ideas of what reality is all about, but the necessity of understanding the information the brain receives.

In order to fully understand a picture, you must know who took it, how it was taken, why it was taken, what is being shown, and what possible conclusions can be made from what has been seen. Without the first and second bit of information, you do not understand the picture's origin. Without the third, you do not understand the picture's reason for existence. Without the fourth, you do not understand what you are seeing. Without the fifth, you cannot gain as much knowledge from the experience or know how your knowledge would compare to another's. All of these bits of information are necessary for drawing an accurate conclusion, one which verifies the right ideas gained from the experience. This new piece of information that is created by the individual can now be used to construct the premises needed to reach related conclusions or form relating ideas.

This interpretation of information is the first step of the cycle that is human experience. The next is goal formation, which creates determiners of choice using past stimuli received and interpreted. Future goals then influence what stimuli is created in the final step of goal progression (or human interaction), as well as how future stimuli is perceived during the first phase. This is the basic structure of the Unified Theory of Human Experience.

It is important to remember that things are not always true when they appear logical, and things are not always untrue when they appear illogical. These laws exist because we do not possess perfect information. Logic helps us reach reasonable conclusions, but it does not always help us know if either the conclusion or premises are true. We must not only use our knowledge, but our experience, to form our opinions about various topics. In other words, wisdom and insight are needed to compensate for human imperfection.

Recent Ideas: Perfect Judgement, Perfect Mercy

Judgement, or justice, is an obsession of mankind. Yet fair judgement is rare, and perfect judgement impossible. Few consider every aspect needed to be the perfect judge. A frequent saying is as follows: people judge themselves for their intentions, and judge others for their actions. While largely true, this does not hint at perfect justice, because perfect justice requires information that cannot be gathered by human hands. The following is a list of the minimum requirements for perfect judgement:

1. Perfect knowledge of intentions -- knowing what the individual is trying to accomplish and why.
2. Perfect knowledge of actions -- knowing everything the individual did and likely will do.
3. Perfect knowledge of short-term results -- knowing everything which resulted right after a person's actions.
4. Perfect knowledge of long-term results -- knowing everything which resulted long after a person's actions, including the potentials of the future.
5. Perfect alignment with the highest of universe values -- making decisions in accordance with the will of God.

Only God and the Ancients of Days are capable of accessing this kind of data and making the best decision. Humans can attempt to be just, and occasionally they will make the best decision possible, but humans cannot access the vast knowledge required to make the right decision every time.

Speaking of judgement brings me to the topic of mercy, though I believe I have written about this previously. I will define mercy as the following: the reduction in sentence, the removal of a sentence, the stalling of judgement, or the removal of judgement. The requirements for granting perfect mercy has a similar list of minimum attributes:

1. Perfect knowledge of intentions.
2. Perfect knowledge of actions.
3. Perfect knowledge of all potentials being made actuals as a result of the person's decisions.
4. Perfect alignment with the highest values.
5. Perfect knowledge of all potentials being made actuals as a result of mercy.
6. Perfect knowledge of the person's past growth and future potential.

It must be stated though that God cannot always be merciful. Mercy is something that is earned. If mercy was granted to everyone unconditionally, then there could never be justice in the universe. Evil would remain forever. It falls upon God to make the tough decision whether a person (which God instinctively loves) deserves to keep existing or to serve in a particular manner. God must read the soul, and decide what to do in result of an individual's free will decisions. However, there also exists a dual reality where a person is judged by both God and the individual in question, so that the sentence is jointly recognized as fair. The person is granted the ability to see the truth of the matter from which God operates (I believe through the Infinite Spirit). Perhaps mercy is applied in a more automated fashion, the same way actions are known to be right or wrong, or perhaps it is more the role of the Creator Son to provide mercy to the individual while the Ancients of Days recognize how this person would normally be sentenced.