er... uhmmm....

Let's suppose you have a problem.

You're hungry. Okay. Fine. Then the general solution is to end hunger. Let's make a list of possible solutions:

Stop being hungry.
Die.
Eat.
Eat ___(specific food)___.
Pretend being hungry is something fun and continue it.
Pretend being hungry is some other problem and solve it.

Really though, we only solve being hungry by eating. Moreover, we tend to have a specific food in mind. But what if you're hungry and you cannot eat? Then you start to evaluate those other solutions. Simply being willful might work for a while. Death as a solution is only applicable for problems that are as permanent as death (in the objective sense... not from the subjective condition that the hungry person is in). The others are also fine for a while.

Wait... what is he going on about now? My idea is to talk about problems in general. A problem exists and accordingly there are solutions numbering more than one. A problem could be so important that it needs to be solved in any way possible. As such, any general solution will suffice. However, problems usually need to be compatible with a host of other restraints, constraints, concerns, and conditions. So, I'm hungry... but I can't afford Red Lobster. I don't have time for Ryan's. I am also cold. Snow makes parking difficult. Thus, Fazzolli's or Wendy's Chili seem to be ideal candidates. However, I'm on my way to work... so McDonald's it is.

As we move from a general solution to a specific one it becomes difficult to identify what the "best" solution is. What outcome are we trying to maximize? What outcomes are we trying to minimize? Which outcomes are we trying to balance? It is during this process that one could potentially just ignore the problem until it became so dire that any solution at all would suffice or only one solution is viable. Thus, if paralyzed by the multitude of solutions to my hunger problem, I wait until I get to work... I've left myself no option except the vending machines.

Accordingly, I am able to help my paralysis by knowing that the default solution will be the vending machines. Then I weigh the shortcomings of various solutions against the default. True, I've had McDonald's all week... but it's better than the vending machines. See how that is, in fact, progress?

I had another topic that I wanted to talk about. However, it required a bit of research. While researching, I found out that I was wrong. I expected to find corroboration and agreement... but it's not there to be found. My problem of needing to blog remained, so I took a stab at writing this instead of going to bed with nothing accomplished. This isn't what I wanted, but I am happier with it than with nothing. That doesn't mean that I prefer it above all solutions. It just means that it is the one I have chosen this time.

After having written this I will still ponder my broken idea. I will explore, destroy, and rebuild it. Later, when I am up to it and when it is strong enough for me... I will write about it. I know that it will be better when done right.

It's an idea that just needs more time. So, I will give it time.

Even now, at the end of this post, I have the urge to delete it all and write nothing.... to just wait for the better idea. But, why waste these words? They are not the ones I intended on writing, but... where is the sense in throwing them away?