Making Connections in Understanding Correctness

1. Being correct on purpose.
2. Being correct on accident.
3. Being incorrect on purpose.
4. Being incorrect on accident.

Being correct on purpose- This mode is what is always desired. This is the plan I set out to accomplish and I accomplished it gaining the desirable results. I also anticipated the shortcomings of the plan, for which I had successful contingency plans. I really think everybody on the planet thinks this is the category they fall into. My advice for this group is pay attention to the plan you set for yourself. Do not just assume it is correct because you came up with it. Be prepared to have a standard by which you evaluate the system and which you come about your ideas of correctness. You may find that what you thought was correct before becomes incorrect, not by your comparison of particulars of your pursuit, but the change of focus by the realization of a more correct pursuit in the first place. We measure accomplishments by comparison to a plan we set as our goals. If the plan itself seeks incorrect goals, then while we feel accomplished in achieving these goals, they were pseudo-goals all along. One must be prepared in the search for correctness, rightness and goodness, to take the pain of admitting their foolishness. Only one who is not heavily reliant on ego can do so.

Being correct on accident- This group sees themselves as the first group, but they are not. In their desire to know some ultimate end as soon as possible, they have been forced to create it. While they do use some sense of observation and academics to gain an initial direction in the creation, they are forced to change as the irrefutable indications show that the attempts to carve out the necessary essence miss the mark. In this sense, this group extends out to create a robust scale of positions between the stands and the goals of the "correct on accident" group, and the "correct on purpose" group. Since this group wants an end game now to resolve the anxiety of agnosticism now, to give a more hedonistic feeling to life, the "being correct on purpose" crowd is more likely to remain agnostic because that is the reality. To make assumptions about what reality infers, and then cleave to it would be a hindrance toward the movement to truth if it does not happen to coincidentally be true because then you have to back track down the path in which you came, essentially unreasoning your way back to the start, then you can start clean down the right path. The first group does not have to do this. I would put both religious thinking, and scientific theory in this group, though I think scientists are aware that their theories reside in this group.

Being incorrect on purpose- I think there can be much debate about this group. I think one good example can be found in music. Certain bands play music the shows "the essence" as it is. They try to polish the lens so to speak, so you can hear with clarity that essence. Then there is another type of band that tries to avoid "the essence". You can tell they know what the essence is, but they chose to avoid it. There is a huge huge difference between one who does not know the thing, and fails to articulate it, and one who knows it and avoids it. From what I have seen, people who are not close to understanding, or are ignorant do not understand these distinctions. They are liable to assume that a weird sounding music is weird because the people just do not get it. Also, a band who avoids the thing may look at a band that tries to show it as beneath them. It really does take an extra step to know the thing, and avoid it. (*whispers* White Stripes!) My artwork tries to show the thing. I am not trying to avoid it, but I want to create a new classicism, discovering new particularity in things that we thought were played out. I look down on those who avoid the thing, because I know the thing, and I know how to avoid the thing, and then I come back to it again with new vigor. Take that White Stripes!.

Being incorrect on accident- Everybody is a part of this group, no matter what. No matter what they think, no matter how well endowed, you are in this group. You are in this group. You are in this group. This group extends to the "being correct on accident" group because they are connected by out of control determinism, or chance, however you view it. When things get out of control, you may get "lucky" and be correct by coincidence, or you could end up in this group, and be "unlucky". No matter how hard we try, we all make errors. Whether those errors are a continuous string of errors based on the fact that we seek incorrect goals, or whether they are singular errors by failing to move in the right directions to seek those goals, we all share in this group by dint of humanity.