1. An Ideal for the purpose of this post will be any set of circumstances that are stated with enough authority/agreement to be a desirable goal of a specific group of people.

The evolution of an Ideal E(I) is considered to take time leading to a static state. The static state of an Ideal S(I) is the state of affairs if all consequences of the Ideal is visible in the circumstances of the group.

We can take the social interaction of people to consist of evolving Ideals which may or may not reach a static state.

A good static state of an Ideal is one that does not affect negatively the stability/security/well being of the majority of the group.

A cool static state of an Ideal is one that does not affect negatively the stability/security/well being of all of the group.

A bad static state of an Ideal is one that does affect negatively the stability/security/well being of all of the group.

Let I_1, I_2 be two ideals.

Even if S(I_1) is not good it may be that the evolution of I_1 can negate a bad S(I_2) or a E(I_2). As long as I_1 is deleted (excluded as a desirable goal) before it reaches a static state the institution of I_1 is not a bad thing (in hindsight) though it may look like one if the S(I_1) is known to be bad by the group.

2.

3. Curious: what is the point of this?

4. Originally Posted by talanum1

A cool static state of an Ideal is one that does not affect negatively the stability/security/well being of all of the group.

A bad static state of an Ideal is one that does affect negatively the stability/security/well being of all of the group.
Talanum

Like the cynical seductress, I am still in the dark as to the purpose of this OP. I do however, have a suggestion to make.

You might wish to examine these two statements in particular in the light of Predicate Logic in order to define more clearly what you mean by the word 'all' here. For instance, in the second of these two, does all mean single member in the group, or any single member of the group? In the first statement does 'all' mean taking the group as a whole, or to each member individually being counted and not being negatively affected?

If you can make these notions more explicit, it might help us understand and, if relevant, comment on, the ideas you are presenting.

5. I just thought I would share the information because it occured to me in a nice dream. I had an example of a case of the statement, but it relies on animations, not words.

An examlpe of a result of a steady state of an Ideal is what happend in Russia: queues for bread.

"In the first statement does 'all' mean taking the group as a whole, or to each member individually being counted and not being negatively affected?"

This would just be required if "negatively affected" is a totally different concept in the two cases - it doesn't matter if you consider any or both.
You can take it as: any single member in the group such that no one is excluded.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement