ok, I re-wrote my theory, attempting to use Wes's posts as a basis to start from. This attempts to explain his "best" action idea, as well as my "correctness in action". it is long. The basics: This theory assumes that you have a rudimentary knowledge of chaos theory (beyond just the idea of the butterfly effect, but have actually studied it in a class or read a book on the theory), that you understand the idea that borders between what make up “you” and what makes up “outside of you”is a very complex issue, and that photons are both waves are particles at the same time. If you understand all that already, then read on. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then the following won’t make sense, and may sound crazy. In a world of self-regulating systems, attractor points, detractor points, we have a systems which can largely exist indefinitely, as long as there a constant input of energy. Stable energy input and enough time, could, in theory create a system which was completely cyclical – the system will vary one direction, then center itself, and vary back the other way, on and on, forever. (think the Aztec calendar for the idea of cycles within cycles that I’m talking about here) Variations in that energy input can add variations to those cycles, creating new, unbefore seen situations and combinations. Certain cycles, before orbiting around an attractor point can be bumped to a different attractor point given enough of an energy change, creating an entirely new set of cycles to interact with the rest of the world. This is how I seen the universe around me. I see these cycles, these re-occurring instances combining in new ways to create new things, but it is all the same cycle. This is a philosophy based on the basics of chaos theory. Now to break from that slightly, consider Einstein. Relativity. The specific idea that the point of view that you have changes how you perceive the universe. This is not a new idea, it has been suggested in ancient religions around the world. Walk in another man’s shoes, see things from their point of view – these suggestions on how to live come from that idea that someone else may see the exact same thing that you do, but it may look completely different to them. You cannot understand an argument that you are having until you put effort into understanding the other person’s side. In a given argument, it may be that both opponents are very close to agreement, but one is missing a critical piece of information. Or the two people may simply have to different cultural backgrounds, and the assumptions on which the argument are based do not mesh. What ever the cause of the argument, we put effort into fighting through them because we believe, through experience or faith, that we are right. The ideas that we have are obvious, everyone should understand them Yet our ideas differ from the person next to us, and we both stand there, believing that we are the correct one. Why is that? Simple. Because if we believed that the person next to us was right, and we were wrong, then we would be changing our own beliefs, and would then be right again. This actually happens a lot. We have a set idea, someone comes along and teaches us the folly of that idea, we go “ah-ha! Of course!” and come to believe what we were just taught. We tend to forget that this too is an argument, simply one in which we accept the loss and move on. We don’t fight to defend our own beliefs in those cases, because we see that our original assumption was wrong. That what we had known to be the truth moments before to be correct is no longer the truth. Back to relativity. We can easily see things, with effort, from another person’s perspective. We can image what things look like from their angle, and see what that difference may cause in how they see the world itself. For an example. Let’s say that I am sitting in the corner of a room, and there is a large white sphere in the center. Wesmorris is sitting in the far corner, on the other side of the room. He says” hey, look, there is a black sphere between us!” I immediately retort, “white sphere, you mean.” His reply? “No, black sphere, look at it.” I respond by first looking at the sphere again, and then saying, “Um, I’m looking right at it, it’s white…” Then the sphere turns 90 degrees. Both wes and I notice for the first time that the sphere is half white and half black. It looks black to him only because the half visible to his perspective. It looks white to me for the exact same reason. We know know that the sphere is both white and black, and there are two visable points from which the sphere can appear to be unform, even though it isn’t. =--This, first off, is not my example. I read it in a book somewhere. The following is the addition to the example--= The above is a perfect example of physical relativity. I want to explain a minor addition to this example – temporal relativity. The me in the above example which sees a white ball knows only a few things. I see a sphere, I see a white ball, I am in a room, so is Wes. I can deduct that Wes is seeing the ball from a different angle, and may see something differently than I do, but I have not gotten that far in my thinking yet. For the time being, I am physically separate from Wes’ perspective. I am also temporally separate from my future self, which is aware of the dual-color nature of the sphere. Was my assertion that the sphere is white wrong? From my current temporal self Ithe future one), I can say yes, the ball is not only white; but only because I know something now which I didn’t know then. Was my assertion that the sphere was white, given the knowledge I had at the time, wrong? No. I, at the time was unaware of anything other than what I knew – Until Wes informed me that the sphere was black, I had no reason to assume anything else that what I percieved. I was right in my assertion – given what I knew at the time. The statement, for me, then, was accurate. Was the information I provided in the statement correct? No. Given that I am a limited being, my statement turned out to not encompass all the factors of the situation. Once I learned more, I changed my understanding of the situation to better reflect the state of it. Even when I percieved the sphere as only white, it was in fact dual-colored. The assertions was wrong, me making the assertion was not wrong. This, I believe is what Wes was talking about before (wes, disagree if I am wrong). Both correctness from a physical and temporal perspective, taken then to also include perspective on concepts, not just physical objects. =--this begins my addition, who this theory then relates to everyday action--= Given this, anything that I do or say right now, assuming that it is based on all that I know, and has the goal of being beneficial, being ‘good’ as it were, is the correct thing to do. If later, it turns out that my action was not the right thing to do, but I didn’t have the knowledge to predict that at the time, the action can be re-defined as the wrong thing, but *my action, taken by me, at the time* is still correct. No matter what happens down the road, my temporal self, at the time the choice was made, decided based on all the possible evidence and knowledge, and therefore acted ‘correctly.’ (I am defining the word correctly as the best possible action that can be taken given the choices available to the individual. Those available choices are defined next.) Now, back to chaos theory cycles. Wes mentioned, I think, that even given everything that I have learned in my life, there is only a subset available to me in order to make a decision. So even if I once heard the white/black ball story before, if I don’t think of it at the time, for the purposes of the decision about what the ball ‘is’ to me, that story doesn’t exist. For that temporal Me, at least. How do the thoughts that we have find themselves at the right or wrong place, at the right or wrong time? I don’t have an easy example for this, but it looks a hell of a lot like a chaotic system with thousands of attractor points, and the “influx of energy” in this case is new thoughts, new experience. And that influx is not stable. You get different levels of information to your conscious mind at different times, depending on the situation, on your state of mind… The available information that you have when it is time to make a decision, that subset of all the knowledge you have, which is both a sub and superset of all human knowledge over all temporal existences, is what you have to base your choices on. It is largely out of your hands. Right? Wrong. If you understand and learn the ebb and flow of your own thoughts, you can push those cycles into new ones. You can move the patterns towards attractor points which are more helpful to your decision making process. You have the ability to choose what you would like to have available to yourself when choices present themselves, and can therefore take control of your own ability to choose. Back to the sphere example. If I am aware that my perspective may lead me to inaccurate views of a given situation, then I can decide to remind myself of that fact over and over again. I can actively say to myself, everyday, every minute, “what I see may not be the case.” When I find myself in an argument with someone, find myself getting angry, I may remind myself that my view is not always fully informed, and I may pause long enough to learn what I need to see it from their side. If I do that, practice that everyday, then it will be second nature when I find myself in that room. Iwill look across at Wes, say correctly that the sphere is white. I will be correct even then, because I will be aware that when I say “the ball is white”, I mean “the ball is white, for me.” When he replies that it is black, I will stand up, and investigate before replying. And I will be correct, even after I find that I *was* wrong. And I will be wrong every day of my life, because I have neither infinite time, or infinite brainpower to understand all the universe at once. I will always have more to learn. I will, as long as I allow myself the freedom to learn everything I come in contact with, always be correct in my actions, because they will truly be the best that I am capable of. Even if a second later, I learn the wrongness of my action, that action was still taken when it was the best thing. So it was the best. And having learned it’s wrongness, I will never repeat it.