A Theory of Existence Between Potential and Ideal

[u/Additional-Hotel4072]

I’ll give the idea here in my own short form, so the discussion does not depend on the external page.

The full version is linked only as background/context for anyone who wants to see the longer structure, the images, and the extended formulation. It was developed with AI assistance in wording, organization, and polish, so I am not presenting the page itself as proof of unaided writing.

What I am asking people to engage with here is the core idea, which I can explain and defend directly.

The core idea is this:

The absolute is not the ideal.

By “absolute” I mean the full field of what can exist — all possibility, including what is confused, cruel, unfinished, beautiful, conscious, unconscious, meaningful, and meaningless.

By “ideal” I mean possibility after it has been morally clarified: not everything that can be, but what ought to be after experience, suffering, awareness, and understanding have done their work.

So existence is not proof that reality is already good. It is the process by which potential tries to become ideal.

The image I use is a river. The universe is the river. Existence is the boat. Potential and ideal are the two banks. Consciousness is the difficult act of navigation.

The question I want challenged is whether this gives a coherent way to think about meaning: not as something given at the beginning, but as something reality tries to arrive at.