Calculating the Extent: Depth and Height as Coequal Partners

In response to an existing article, I believe that there remains a need to develop a more well-rounded statement with regard to how children are to set goals on their behalf. Rather than creating a strong disparity concerning the means in achieving one's goals, a consideration on its significance is to be defined in relation to its extent to which may suggest a particular quality of a potential possession in time. This potential possession may entail a wide variety of what life may offer, hence the demand to remain in focus. However, remaining in focus does not necessarily stand on its own because this as well requires the need to create a series of acts which may or may not fall under the guise of any measurement of satisfaction.

This is due to how measures of goals or dreams are regarded on separate units thereby providing different degrees of recognition which becomes lacking in nature as children are compelled to compare that may instill a hierarchy of perspective with regard to which dream may or may not be deemed to be acceptable. A disparity in acceptability, in this sense, is best viewed in terms of its authorization that may appear upon the validation of the child's guardian or parent, evident on the approval to continue and persist.

Indeed, depth and height are agreed to be two different things. Both are assigned to measure yet are conceptualized distinctly to define separate qualities. The former indicates an inward processing, whereas the latter indicates a physical accumulation. In fact, it will not take a while for one to compare the two based on their plain value. However, the idea stands that there are certainly a lot more as to how each of this is able to extend onto their appointed course of measurement. That each tackles a very significant path that may or may not manifest a strong appeal upon its achievement thereby the consideration to reevaluate.

Considering their distinction in alignment with what best corresponds to their purpose, it does not alter the idea that these two, at some point in their nature, are bound to overlap in order to sustain their potential values which may be navigated upon the root of their existence as depth can be believed to be grounded on a quality that connects to the Other and as height can be assumed to be grounded on a quality that develops the Other.

For that matter, it can be taken into account that height that does not coexist with depth cannot deemed as an established entity when these two are rather believed to thrive out of their exchange in function. Because dreaming without depth poses a scope on the mere self, whereas dreaming without height asserts a state of stagnancy thereby resulting to a neglect towards the regard for inclusivity, responsibility, and empathy.

Perhaps, there will not be the need to detach, if instead of teaching our fellow, especially our children, to be compelled by one of these, we teach them to consider, if not, then to reconsider and see through the holistic value of how the former (depth) motivates the latter (height) or the other way around. That instead of striving towards creating dreamers who are encouraged to earn for self-possession, we produce dreamers who are motivated by a sentimental-driven mindset that extends, projects, and relates the Self towards its outside.