The measure as written
The rule of GUIDANCE AND ITS GUARDIANS sets the order in which guidance is given:
“An individual must provide guidance to others in accordance with the Guidance Law, with priority being given to the retractor in line with the level of error.”
The guiders are selected by the Guidance Law:
The question arises as to who is eligible for this important task of guidance. Every worthful individual is a candidate, while selection depends upon the capability level and social status. (No one appoints them; by the Guidance Law itself, every individual is a guider for those of the same or lower capability level and social status.) (This standard is only valid for an ideal society.)
The Guidance Law states that:
(Reasonable guidance is the one provided to the individual by another entity with the same or higher capability level and social status.)
Each error is placed in one of three levels:
To briefly define the level of error, it is divided into three levels: the first level includes a compromise that is confined to one’s own boundary (an immediate deviation from essentials that has high individual risk but low to no societal risk). The second level includes a compromise that affects both the individual and the society, i.e. high individual risk and medium societal risk. The third level includes a compromise that is lethal to the individual and poses a great threat to societal sustainability, i.e. high individual risk as well as high societal risk.
Level 3:
To discuss some details, let’s start with level three: it is when the actions of an individual threaten society and one’s own self. It usually affects the people at high positions of societal organization, but cases are also suspected among medium to lower position holders. What does this error mean? It should be kept in mind that these errors are not guilt, i.e. these are not wilful errors [the person is sincere towards his concerned moral and ethical values, but things are not well in place due to a knowledge deficiency (useful and relevant knowledge), while a lack of appropriate experience can be another cause]. These third-level-bearing people include those individuals who are perception moulders (especially the ones handling mass communication means) (e.g. media persons, writers, poets etc.) (they must not be agents, i.e. working on behalf of some destabilizing entity, but the error is a result of a lack of reality-based facts / on-the-ground situation, while not having the experience to analyse the data to reach a comprehensive result). They are given more priority for guidance compared to level two or level one error-bearing individuals. Their guidance is provided by those of equal or higher capability in their own field, by sharing reality-based facts and the on-the-ground situation, and by giving them the experience to analyse such data.
Level 2:
Level two error corresponds to high individual risk and medium societal risk. It usually affects the people at medium positions of societal organization (the managing class, i.e. the people who are mostly concerned with implementing the strategies rather than devising them). This error-related division is based on the amount of effect that is imparted on societal effectiveness rather than on direct measurement of the intensity; this is because doing so involves deep complications, and a vast number of standards may erupt to satisfy different points of view. Now, to discuss the people who are susceptible to level two errors: these are the local leaders (family elders, group regulators, area invigilators, prominent commentators, advisors etc.). They are given more priority for guidance compared to level one error-bearing individuals. Their guidance comes from the capables at the organizational level above them, who explain the strategy behind the tasks they implement.
And Level 1, with the measure of all three:
Level one error corresponds to high individual risk and low to no societal risk. Virtually every individual can be the bearer of such an error, but diagnosis is relatively difficult, as there is no apparent effect on the society (the concerned person is the bearer as well as the one affected). Although it is given the third priority level (as societal integration is the priority because it is essential to maintain the whole structure) (also, it is on a personal basis and requires close monitoring / association to determine the exact deficiency), due to its widespread nature and the difficulty in determining / sorting it out, it is the most important one and plays a crucial role in the overall mood of the society. It is when an individual is struggling to cope with the societal expectations (legitimate) but is either unaware of the deficiency or is not finding the right tool to eliminate it. This error can cause depression, anxiety, restlessness, diminished self-confidence, anger (extreme case) etc., while prolonged suffering can turn the error into guilt. Keeping in view the guidance law, the individuals who interact largely with the affected person are the responsibility holders, and they should determine the cause (by holding a meeting of several interactors of the concerned person, personally interviewing him, collecting relevant knowledge through anonymous surveys etc.) and divert all possible resources to sort out the issue. (In practice, an error can be placed in its level by weighing how likely it is to spread against how much harm it can do to the society; for Level 1, the procedure above, i.e. the meetings of the interactors, the personal interviews and the anonymous surveys, serves as the screening, while each guided person is matched with a guider of the same or higher capability level and social status, as the Guidance Law requires.)
This sub-section sets out how an error is placed in its level and guidance given by it: how likely the error is to spread, weighed against how much harm it can do to the society; the screening for Level 1; and each guided person matched with a guider by the Guidance Law.
What it measures, in plain words
An error is not a guilt: "these are not wilful errors". The person is sincere towards the moral and ethical values concerned, but things are not well in place, for a lack of useful and relevant knowledge or of appropriate experience. Guidance must come in time: "a delay or absence can be lethal", and "prolonged suffering can turn the error into guilt".
Who guides. By the Guidance Law, each person is guided by one of "the same or higher capability level and social status". No one appoints the guiders.
Three levels, by the effect on the society.
· Level 3. High risk to the person and "a great threat to societal sustainability". It usually affects those at high positions of societal organization, and among them the perception moulders, especially those handling the means of mass communication. It comes first. They are guided by those of equal or higher capability in their own field, who share reality-based facts and the on-the-ground situation, and give them the experience to analyse such data.
· Level 2. High risk to the person and medium risk to the society. It usually affects the managing class and the local leaders. It comes second. They are guided by the capables at the organizational level above them, who explain the strategy behind the tasks they implement.
· Level 1. High risk to the person and low to no risk to the society. Virtually every individual can bear it. It comes third, yet for its widespread nature it is "the most important one". Those who interact most with the person find the cause and divert all possible resources to sort it out.
Placed by its effect, not by its intensity. The division rests on "the amount of effect that is imparted on societal effectiveness rather than on direct measurement of the intensity".
The measure.
· The level. How likely the error is to spread, weighed against how much harm it can do to the society.
· The screening for Level 1. The meetings of the interactors, the personal interviews and the anonymous surveys.
· The matching. Each guided person matched with a guider of the same or higher capability level and social status.