\documentstyle[fullpage,11pt]{article}
\title{The Fundamental Problem of Life}
\author{Alistair Thorn}
\date{Friday morning 3am, November 22, 1991}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\section{Interaction}
\par
This is one of the most basic problems, from which a substantial portion of others stem.  Unfortunately, however, it is additionally the major source of positive effects, making its elimination an unattractive option.  In interacting with others, there come many problems, ranging from initial approach to enduring interaction.  Additionally, there is frequently the conflict between the rational and the emotional, and the short and long term.  Frequently, these are coupled, with the rational being most accurate for the long term and the emotional being best for short term problems.  This is not always the case, but this variation is not one of the serious problems.  What does make this a serious problem is the fact that most problems exist in both the short term and the long term, and if action to satisfy desired conditions in each of these periods is conflicting, a crisis can arise.  This may be the central problem of interaction.  That being the maximization of each status,
\begin{itemize}
\item{Extended}  or, rational.  This also frequently corresponds to what constitutes appropriate in societal perceptions, simplifying aspects of the problem.
\item{Immediate} or, emotional.  This is a continuous state, in which aspects of the extended state become part of the immediate state, but not a complete substitution.  This is the state that determines emotional health and, therefore, ability to deal with maximizing extended status.
\end{itemize}
\par
One consideration is the obvious question as to why this problem is not universally overwhelming and why one cannot simply emulate whatever techniques are employed by those in an acceptable state.  The fundamental reason this is not a reasonable technique is that under most circumstances, maximizing extended and immediate status are not acutally, or not perceived to be in opposition.  There are two basic reasons for them being in opposition.  The first is the traditional, obvious reason that on occasion specific exceptional circumstances result in the the actions to maximize each goal being in {\em actual} opposition.  Usually, this is managable, as choosing the action which maximizes extended state will result in overall maximization.  Occasionally, however, not dealing with immediate state impedes the ability to maximize extended state, causing a problem.  This case shall be dealt with separately.  The second key way in which the two goals come into opposition is by realization that certain actions, originally thought to increase both immediate and extended state, will, in fact, detriment one or the other (usually extended, as if it affects immediate state, it will be quite noticed).  The initial reaction to such a ``problem'', would be to suggest that one adopt the approach dictated by the realization or revert to the previously supposed ``incorrect'' method of thinking, as it would avoid such a conflict.  This reasoning is invalid twofold.  First, presupposing that the individual's realization is correct, reverting to the intial approach would simply result in a decrease in potential extended state, at the cost of avoiding a conflict, which has a potential to decrease the immediate state.  This invalidity, however, can be reduced to a complex tradeoff between extended and immediate state.  If one is capable of adopting whatever is dictated by the realization, then indeed a temporary, and perhaps permanent, fix is made.  This is how progress is made, however, this is frequently not possible.  The second reason for the invalidity of reverting to the previous approach is far more significant, as it entails the inability to easily adopt whatever is dictated by this realization.
\par
This reason is that one of the more likely forms of this realization is in the error of some method that is being employed, as opposed to the correctness of some method that is not, but should be, employed.  Herein lies the fundamental problem of interaction.  One knows that a specific interactive tactic produces an undesired result, however, one of a number of problematic situations exist.
\begin{itemize}
\item{No other tactics} appear to be available.  In most cases, eventually some other tactics will be arrived at, commonly fitting into one of the other categories.  This difficulty in finding approaches may impede the immediate state to such a degree that ability to examine the possiblities is seriously affected.
\item{Only worse options} exist.  Once again, frequently, other options will be arrived at eventually, but at a cost to the immediate state.  Additionally, a doubt as to the certainty of whether the other options are indeed ``worse'' may arise, resulting in the following situation.
\item{Uncertain options} exist.  Options exist, which are not necassarily worse, but could be much worse, or better than the discarded choice.  If one arrives at this case, this is the state from which learning is obtained.  An option is exercised and the result is evaluated, and remembered for the future.  This is an effective system to learn how to deal with varied situations, however two similar tactics that may have different effects, or the same tactic having different effects in slightly different situations, may result in one assuming that the tactic is inappropriate and cause one to look for alternate options, whether necassary or not.  This fact makes it clear that occasionally, for a valid experimental approach, one must occasionally choose the option that is assumed to be invalid initially.  Experience from this will be an effective gauge as to the accuracy of one's own intuition.
\item{Roughly equivalent options} exist.  Equally bad options exist, with different distributions of the negative effects.  This yields the necessity for a value judgement as to what form the effects may manifest themselves in and do the least overall damage.  Often, this will again come down to a decision between the immediate state and the extended state.  Once again, the problem of the immediate state affecting the efficiency of evaluating the best approach to maximizing the extended state arises.
\end{itemize}

\end{document}





