Dichotomies: What appears to now be a running series.

But seriously.

Personally, my flavor is that of truth as it pertains to situation. Looking at the idea of "character flaws", one can work so hard to change the mind of others: that their propensity for anger is not something they can control, it is not their fault, et cetera (and just to use one example). Such propensity can be attributed, instead, to how one was raised, what learning opportunities one was exposed to, and finally [the root of it all] straight up genetics. Would you hold it against a person when you hear the reason they make inappropriate jokes is because they have Asperger's?

Now naturally this begs the question: is it anymore about fault, or is it something else? By that I mean could it not be said that there is still something which we use as a tool for objective measure beyond "universal" fault? The notion at first sounds quite simple, but when ascertaining one's, and by that I mean "another's", existence [or facet thereof] we must use universal cues to do so. If everything about another person is relative, then we are at no legitimate ground to judge or take any non-passive action on or against any other person.

Therefore, in light of our attempts to find some universal criterion, we engage in a series of ethical riddles and impracticalities to come up with some semblance or decorum that provides us a way around that awful indecisive state to which we are so phobic. I would be wont to say something like, "Well, I don't see what the big deal is given the wide range of defensive mechanisms we can employ." Pick your poison, I suppose. Regardless, or possibly not, trying to find this "universal truth" about other people depends so tragically upon which side of the rifle we stand.

Whereas I pointed out that a person can work so hard to assert that what is perceived as a "flaw" or "fault" on another's end is simply something they cannot control and therefore (by logic which I shall not repeat here as to not lose my dwindling audience to further boredom) renders them nolo contendere. On the other hand, and one of which I expect a vibrant affirmation, we find that these elements are still not conducive to ourselves or society and "be as impalpitable as they may be," one must still deal with them at arm's length. Obviously it can be inferred that ethos is not enough to counter our survivalist logos. Or perhaps what really manifests itself is our own reflective ethos: that passionate plea from within our hearts to stamp out unbecoming [for lack of a better word] elements for the good of our children.

Referencing some earlier writing: since logic and truth is not just about what is universally true but is also what is accessible and what is relevant, this marker of assertion becomes colored with these processes: what is understandable and what is desirable. While it is "true", per se, that the autist is not at fault for his actions, they still present an undesirable element to society and society bears with it intrinsic feelings accordingly. And to warrant out those feelings at the behest of the autist's passionate plea would be to perform the action vice versa and call it just as well.

Now, to lay tracks, I want to tie this together with the notion of position. Where one falls, namely where you and I fall, on the issue of another's inculpable behavior should reflect whatever is best for us [the viewer]. If through psychological development we have a strongly-tied idea of the intrinsic value of life to ALL life regardless of its presentation, then the truth must be materialized as impalpitable to the victim, and they are absolved of all "guilt". If, on the other hand, we feel that the value of life is merit-based and must be weighed on the pros and cons of self-survival (i.e., how actualized we are? Sorry, offensive conclusion..) ... if we feel that the value of life must be weighed on the pros and cons of self-survival then we are bound to engage in some method of reasoning to determine to what extent lies some semblance of "universal guilt" found against the person, with the idea of "fault" still in absentia. This point is extremely important to remember, as it distinguishes between "truth" and "set of criteria for possible action" -- though I am not advocating any action!!

I will leave you with this: it is important to consider that if you fall into the category of people who believe in intrinsic, inalienable value to life in all forms then you are a) an idiot, and b) not subject to the logical course of peer evalution/condemnation I have moderately illuminated. But primarily, you are an idiot and should probably read a chemistry textbook. Secondly: if you do not fall into this category, and believe that the value to life must be weighed on any criteria, any criteria whatsoever for whatever reason, then let us not be too hasty to absolve anyone of anything, for what better way to pass the time than to play games with logos and ethos- a magnetic and electric field dichotomy around a looped current, causing a back-and-forth oscillation ad inifinitum.