One of the most stubborn impediments to individual (and cultural) progress is the unwillingness of many to pursue idealism. I believe this stems from an initial misconception and systematic reinforcement of that misunderstanding. The concept of the ideal is never addressed clearly and therefore ideals are not composed to their full potential, denying them the elasticity and longevity to maintain a loving, persistent pursuit. As realism imposes comparative restraints on not only idealism, but enactment, a fairly arbitrary lineage of superiority has come to prominence that benefits from reassurance that the only acceptable conception of success is fulfillment of realistic expectations as opposed to ideal situations.

Perhaps, for clarity's sake, we should differentiate idealism and realism. I hope we can all agree they compose a strict dichotomy (as the flimsy architecture of the following depends on it). Less accepted is the obvious fact that they are absolutely mutually exclusive. A commonly accepted chronology is that ideals are first conceived or, to be fair, (mis)perceived then tailored to existing conditions as a prerequisite for implementation. This is the point of restriction of the ideal, where it becomes an idea. To further avoid definition by negation, We may agree that an ideal is an internal, whole, independent conception without consideration for externally existing conditions. It is internal in it's creation within an individual's mind, as opposed to the product of prior influence or conglomorated compormise. It is whole in its acknowledgement of the immutable goal as well as every step and element necessary for its completion. These steps and elements should be attainable by the individual to conceive. It is independent in its irrelevance of external effects.

What often occurs is that an ideal is conceived and then conceded quickly to confinements. These confinements are addressed formally as Reality or the Real World and almost invariably awarded dominance in the conscious sphere. Therefore, ideals are quickly altered, truncated and the goal of any ideal, the tail end, is mutilated or mutated. The ideal becomes an idea. The idea is the grey area through which all idealism must pass in hopes of acheivement. To positively identify Reality, we may agree that it is external, inconstant and reliant. It is external in that it exists outside of the conceiver, either partially or completely. It is inconstant in that it never takes a permanent form. It is reliant in that so many factors need to coincide for a particular reality to exist.

Most of us have ideas, plans or notions because we abandon the ideal tail for the sake of ease, in compliance with the real. One begins to make conditional statements to allow for

To only make matters more confusing, a presented reality is often lifted to the level of the ideal. For me, the most immediate example is the idealization of another human being, often times a living one, where the external, inconstant and reliant qualities are stripped away as to invent or preserve (or pervert) an appearance of perfection. There is simply no way to revert or repeal imperfections. What is pejoratively referred to as Idealization is the application of the ideal in place of the real. The two cannot co-exist, so there is no conflagration of the two. It is mere substitution, often employed in attempts of ideal pursuit.

Of course, another excellent example is the ethos of most political parties and religions which begin with the physical world we inhabit and retroactively apply a vague concept of idealism over it. Most literature, whether blaming others in one case or explaining away in the other, promotes an ideal as distant, yet indistinct goal, full of covenants and caveats.

The result is invariably replacement or settling. Replacement occurs when a component or the actual preconceived goal of an ideal is altered in concession to preexisting terms, therefore ceasing to be an ideal. Settling is the result of external forces such as friction and resistance cause a complete loss of momentum at whatever step towards an ideal at which an individual stands. Abandonment is a form of settling, the most extreme form.

Memorable coinage has long attempted to dissuade Many advise that one "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst." Many also defend defeatist views as "I'm not a Pessimist, I'm a Realist." I suppose my reaction to such pitiful passivity is the impetus for this entire discussion. I see no reason to purposely limit oneself and pursue a world created by other forces and whims, to submit before even attempting to establish one's idea. I assume that many share the most hypocritically hidden motivation of ease. As diametric and dialectic opposites, idealism and realism are inevitably bound to cause resistance and for many, this is too exhausting to tolerate. Hope is a passive reimagining of relinquished responsibility. Equal attention and preparation should be allotted to the ideal (not just the best, another flexible term bowing to some imagined superiority of the real)> Pessimists are perpetrators of acts directed against ideals, one who specifically and knowingly creates obstacles for others or themselves. Realists are those who passively accept pessimistic limitations and attempt to co-exist between the ideal and the pessismistic

Maybe the many are right that the completely inorganic, ethereal substance that composes the ideal cannot exist in what we call the real, organic world. In fact, in last week's discussion, I myself posited the gap between the internal ideal and its lack of its practical application in a world of action. Does this mean reality is a limitation? Is the sole and uncontested conclusion the withering of an ideal conception in its passage to the material world? Is it mere delusion in face of impossibility and impassibility to fashion an ideal into a tangibility?

To remain an ideal in action, the goal must be rigid and unwavering, with each step towards the conclusion set firmly in anticipation of its execution. Then every event, which is the immediate, fleeting moment of impact between the ideal and the real, must be categorized. It either is an ideal condition that promotes or facilitates the long established goal and is embraced and fostered, or it is a product of reality, an inhibitor and is to be disregarded. Is this to say that such factors as gravity and death, which impose immediate and seemingly permanent resistance to some ideals are only a product of a pessimistic mind? Am I about to preach that the only reason such obstacles exist is that we allow or create them? No. That is blind foolishness, it's observable that even animals with absolutely disregard, or perhaps (and I'll only allow it this once) ignorance, concerning these very conceptions fall prey to them. But such realities have proven to be impermanent. Unforseen factors can alter such seeming certainties. Reality is the most impermanent force in the universe. It is inconstant. This includes the intimidating tyrannies of death and physical laws. They will change, and have. What's important is that an ideal remain steadfast and vitally intertwined into an everyday interaction within, under and against these realities.

Each step of an ideal goal is in itself a smaller ideal and must be obstinately supported until realism falls prey to its ephemerality. While the tail may shorten or flicker, it's of the utmost important not allow it to be chopped off in concession. The key to maintaining this method of relentless pushing is to conceive the ideal (the small step or final goal) before enacting it. The whole ideal must precede the action and must be conceived independent of existing forces, as suggested above. As long as the initial conception remains unyeilding, the ideal will not pass through that dulling gray plasma of idea.

In certain fields of practice, such as the empirical sciences and passenger transportation, the phrase "ideal conditions" is employed. These conditions may be artificial as in the first instance or fleeting as in the second, but existent nonetheless. At first, this may apprear contradictory but in fact it's very useful. Ideal conditions exist when the real yields, when the uncompromised preconceptions of the ideal are met without resistence or coercion. This is the sublimation of the ideal. It is the application of the sublime to the ideal. While this concept appears in the physical world, albeit as a rarity, the transition is that of solid to gas whereas in the mental world, the sublime effect occurs in reverse. As pessimists are an extreme and active companion to realists, the sublime is the superlative relative of the ideal. It is superior to the real, superseding it and actively altering it. As with physical phenomena, it's a rarity but an actuality.

Unfortunately, by definition, idealism is a stalemate. Two ideals will not necessarily coincide. At best, two end goals are serendipitously similar, encountering each other after their conception. At worst, two ideals are completely contradictory and become each other's realities. As an ideal's conception cannot be compromised without ceasing to exist as an ideal, then the idea of a unified goal is nearly impossible, barring a sublime collectively independent focus in the Mayan style. In the meantime, let's hope for the best...