The dominant Western perspective on idealism is likely a static end. I note within me and my desire for the ideal idyllic end, an imagined, Hume-ian, low-vivacity, highly ordered system of statics, or even worse, a singular static.

I suppose plenty of this is thanks to a history of images and heroism: we are nearly trained by history to look for a singular hero, and for the final state of that hero to be static. Novels end happily, leaving to our imagination only the last scene, pictures display a static ideal.. all display a type of rest from work, where work is the battle fought actively against entropic forces, for the ideal state. Work and activity is banished, since they are direct consequences of an evil.

But to contrast this, what would a non-singular, non-static idyllic world be?

First, an idyllic world: This world is good (without evil or pain). There is an end of value-judgments between and regarding all elements. There is no need for improvement, though it could be possible to display the good (whatever it might be). The need/availability of activity is still to be determined.

Second, a non-singular world: A multiplicity of distributed good is either a heirarchical structure (static) of the elements, or an actively re-coupling, restructuring of the elements, across an eternity of time, going through all the permutations. The ‘good’ here, is displayed over time, occuring between elements.

Third, a dynamic, non-static world: As mentioned, if there is to be a distributed good, there almost certainly will involve a dynamism of the elements. Activity is not the realm of evil or against-evil, but the redisplay of the good inherent. This could involve development and growth, but likely the final-state will be reached.
Here we find a disparity between the nature of terms ‘final’ ‘state’ and the ‘change’ involved in growth. Taking a systemic approach, the system of elements can continually re-shuffle, expressing and exchanging between each other (growth), while the system itself remains stable.

As an aside, I fear here my number-theory will fail: that a sufficiently large number of elements, with an exponentially high number of permutations or relations will still fail to reach an infinity of time (eternity). Taking the inverse approach, an infinity divided out will still reveal an infinity.

To challenge my third point again, there are at least 3 types of progress I’ve noticed: a basic, anti-entropic form, an internal building-inward, and an external building-upward towards a transcendent goal. These seem to appear on a continuum of responsibility from a Maslow-like ‘basic self’, ‘optional self’, through self-beyond-self/self-projected-onto-the-other; a feeling responsibility over the external world.
This first kind will not apply in a final good state. The second may; and the third certainly sounds backwards: the final-state having a goal? Usually we consider goals-completed as final-states. Odd.

I’m not sure where this goes, but it was an interesting study mid-day..