What is Perfection?

[Iacchus]

Perfection is the backdrop which underscores the experience. Perfection is coming into being ... which, is awareness of The One.

Only problem is that "the one" is imperfect and perfection will never come into being because perfection is relative. experiance and perfection have nothing to do with each other.

How's that for BS against BS huh?

Actually, if there was any one statement that states my belief in God, that would have to be it. Matter-of-fact I may even adopt that for my signature. I'm surprised you can't see what I'm saying there? But then again, if you take everything I say as BS (granted I don't take too many things seriously on this board) I suppose that might have something to do with it.

Yes, with regards to everything else I've stated on this thread, this is the one which ties it altogether.

 

[Maledict]

Actually, if there was any one statement that states my belief in God, that would have to be it. Matter-of-fact I may even adopt that for my signature. I'm surprised you can't see what I'm saying there? But then again, if you take everything I say as BS (granted I don't take too many things seriously on this board) I suppose that might have something to do with it.

Yes, with regards to everything else I've stated on this thread, this is the one which ties it altogether.

I'm an intergalatic positron from the realm of galacticus, Kree kree!

 

[Iacchus]

I'm an intergalatic positron from the realm of galacticus, Kree kree!

Relative to what though? An existence which is non-absolute? What a joke!

It's like I say, perfection is the backdrop of experience, by which we all approach that which is absolute ... in Its perfection.

 

[Z]

Perfection is a mental ideal, imposed by Man. Perfection can only ever be achieved through artifice, and then only in relation to a standard. A tool is only perfect if it serves the need it was intended for perfectly. A medicine is perfect for treating an illness only if it is 100% successful with no side effects.

The universe is not perfect, cannot be perfect, and is not approaching perfection. Likewise Man, likewise every natural thing.

There is no 'backdrop' to the Universe - the Universe is the ALL-THAT-IS. The ALL-THAT-IS is flawed in many respects relative to many things. THe only perfection being approached by the Universe is the state of perfect entropy - absolute dispersion of mass and energy into perfect homogeny.

There is no 'The One' in this case, so your entire straw man must burn. Badly.

You perfect fool!

 

[Iacchus]

There is no 'backdrop' to the Universe - the Universe is the ALL-THAT-IS. The ALL-THAT-IS is flawed in many respects relative to many things. THe only perfection being approached by the Universe is the state of perfect entropy - absolute dispersion of mass and energy into perfect homogeny.

Oh, absolutely!

 

[Iacchus]

There is no 'The One' in this case, so your entire straw man must burn. Badly.

The fact that we are conscious and are capable of determining absolutes do exist (although relative to our own perception that is) would tend to suggest otherwise. And, even if the Universe were itself the Only One (but how could that be?), we still haven't come to understand what the transcendant qualities are of its wholeness. Obviously it must include some aspect of intelligence somewhere, otherwise we wouldn't be here, right?

 

[Mercutio]

The fact that we are conscious and are capable of determining absolutes do exist (although relative to our own perception that is) would tend to suggest otherwise.

Why? As Zaaydragon says, we do not "determine absolutes exist"; rather, we create them in the abstract by definition.

And, even if the Universe were itself the Only One (but how could that be?), we still haven't come to understand what the transcendant qualities are of its wholeness.

How could it be? I could just as easily ask how could it not be? Transcendent qualities? What, the ones you make up? We have not come to understand them perhaps because they do not exist except in your imagination.

Obviously it must include some aspect of intelligence somewhere, otherwise we wouldn't be here, right?

Unless you are simply refering to our own intelligence in a needlessly convoluted (and superfluous) manner, your conclusion does not follow from your premise...let alone "obviously".

 

[Iacchus]

Why? As Zaaydragon says, we do not "determine absolutes exist"; rather, we create them in the abstract by definition.

In other words we really don't know whether we exist or not, right?

How could it be? I could just as easily ask how could it not be? Transcendent qualities? What, the ones you make up? We have not come to understand them perhaps because they do not exist except in your imagination.

Do the parts of the body come together to serve the purpose -- in other words, that which is transcendent -- of the whole?

Unless you are simply refering to our own intelligence in a needlessly convoluted (and superfluous) manner, your conclusion does not follow from your premise...let alone "obviously".

Does intelligence arise out of the lack thereof? Do cows give birth to cows? Do sheep give birth to sheep? Does intelligence give birth to intelligence? So where did intelligence come from and, how did it arise in man?

 

[Radrook]

Try to convince a pregnant woman who has asthma that her pitiful condition does not exist and see HER reaction. Obviously some things exist for all practical purpoes and must be dealt with accordingly. So Zayrdragon is merely playing with semantics.

 

[Radrook]

While there IS something to yin and yang - what is heat without cold? Satisfaction without longing? Pleasure without pain? - there isn't much to yin and steve.

Life without death?
A woman has to lose her baby to apreciate the one that lived?
Naaaaah!
I don't buy that.

 

[Mercutio]

Try to convince a pregnant woman who has asthma that her pitiful condition does not exist and see HER reaction. Obviously some things exist for all practical purpoes and must be dealt with accordingly. So Zayrdragon is merely playing with semantics.

Unless I am mistaken, Zaaydragon was merely speaking of the concept of "perfection", not of reality. I think, Radrook, that you are arguing against something Z did not say.

 

[Mercutio]

In other words we really don't know whether we exist or not, right?

Please explain to me how you arrive at this from what Zaaydragon said. You say "in other words", so I assume you must somehow find them equivalent. I don't see even the most convoluted path from one to the other--I am willing to be wrong, of course, as always. So...please draw me a map from point A to point B.

Otherwise...I simply have to assume that you did not understand Z's point, and are trying to obscure this.

Do the parts of the body come together to serve the purpose -- in other words, that which is transcendent -- of the whole?

What is the purpose of the body? To feed worms? If that is the purpose, then no, there is no emergent quality of the whole that could not be served by the parts. If the purpose is to run, or to think, or to make smaller bodies by rubbing two larger bodies together, then there are loads of bodies not fulfilling these purposes, and so, no, there seems to be no necessary emergent property there. And since your original statement spoke to the Universe as a whole, one must ask what the purpose of the universe is, a question which is nonsensical unless your worldview presupposes the purpose you intend to find (as yours does).

Does intelligence arise out of the lack thereof? Do cows give birth to cows? Do sheep give birth to sheep? Does intelligence give birth to intelligence? So where did intelligence come from and, how did it arise in man?

Well, yes, intelligence does arise out of a lack therof. In our case, it seems to have been selected for due to its reproductive advantage. It need not have been this way, though--if some episode in our evolutionary past had gone the other way, with bigger teeth beating greater intelligence, we would not be here to ponder the question. We are the result of many such accidents. For each "road not taken" that did not succeed, there are countless possibilities other than our own existence...they just didn't make it...we did. No design. Just chance and natural selection.

 

[uruk]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by uruk

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Iacchus

Perfection is the backdrop which underscores the experience. Perfection is coming into being ... which, is awareness of The One.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only problem is that "the one" is imperfect and perfection will never come into being because perfection is relative. experiance and perfection have nothing to do with each other.

How's that for BS against BS huh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, if there was any one statement that states my belief in God, that would have to be it. Matter-of-fact I may even adopt that for my signature. I'm surprised you can't see what I'm saying there? But then again, if you take everything I say as BS (granted I don't take too many things seriously on this board) I suppose that might have something to do with it.

Yes, with regards to everything else I've stated on this thread, this is the one which ties it altogether.

Ya know Iacchus I'm going to call you on this and say that even you don't know what your talking about here. So prove me wrong .

Please define perfection. Or at least what you believe is perfect. How is perfection and experiance linked? And what exactly is "the one". Please do not utilize any poetic language as this is too general a method in which to convey an idea and can be subject to missinterpretation.

 

[Iacchus]

Please define perfection. Or at least what you believe is perfect. How is perfection and experiance linked? And what exactly is "the one". Please do not utilize any poetic language as this is too general a method in which to convey an idea and can be subject to missinterpretation.

I thought I made this pretty clear in the original post.

 

[Dancing David]

The problem is people become numb and begin to build up defenses, while continuing to do the thing which causes the pain. All the while the potential continues to build, for even greater suffering and pain.

My point was that suffering in the extreme would indicate the the universe is in no way perfect. Which you still haven't addressed.

 

[Dancing David]

Relative to what though? An existence which is non-absolute? What a joke!

It's like I say, perfection is the backdrop of experience, by which we all approach that which is absolute ... in Its perfection.

Vauge musings do not perfection make, where is this backdrop of perfection? Was it there in gas chambers of Osweichim? Was it there when Pol Pot killed three million?

What is this background?

 

[Iacchus]

Please explain to me how you arrive at this from what Zaaydragon said. You say "in other words", so I assume you must somehow find them equivalent. I don't see even the most convoluted path from one to the other--I am willing to be wrong, of course, as always. So...please draw me a map from point A to point B.

Otherwise...I simply have to assume that you did not understand Z's point, and are trying to obscure this.

Are you suggesting the fact that we are alive and real and very much aware of it is not an experience of that which is absolute? Or, are we just figments of our own imagination? That's really the only alternative you have to Zaayrdragon's statement.

What is the purpose of the body? To feed worms? If that is the purpose, then no, there is no emergent quality of the whole that could not be served by the parts. If the purpose is to run, or to think, or to make smaller bodies by rubbing two larger bodies together, then there are loads of bodies not fulfilling these purposes, and so, no, there seems to be no necessary emergent property there. And since your original statement spoke to the Universe as a whole, one must ask what the purpose of the universe is, a question which is nonsensical unless your worldview presupposes the purpose you intend to find (as yours does).

You're implying that the purpose is not already there, in the state of the way things already are. So no, you don't just make up some arbitrary purpose which is not related and pretend like it is.

Well, yes, intelligence does arise out of a lack therof. In our case, it seems to have been selected for due to its reproductive advantage. It need not have been this way, though--if some episode in our evolutionary past had gone the other way, with bigger teeth beating greater intelligence, we would not be here to ponder the question. We are the result of many such accidents. For each "road not taken" that did not succeed, there are countless possibilities other than our own existence...they just didn't make it...we did. No design. Just chance and natural selection.

If the Universe wasn't so structured in the way that it is, nothing would have evolved. So, the fact that we here and, are intelliegent, has nothing to do with chance.

 

[Dancing David]

In other words we really don't know whether we exist or not, right?

Only silly immaterialists make that claim, what doesn't exist is 'you' or 'me' the self.



Do the parts of the body come together to serve the purpose -- in other words, that which is transcendent -- of the whole?

Uh no, that is an error of determinism, there are parts of the body which serve no purpose whatsoever.

Ypu haven't shown design or perfection, so how now brown cow? Where is purpose?


Does intelligence arise out of the lack thereof?

Most certainly, else we would not learn.

Do cows give birth to cows? Do sheep give birth to sheep?

Note nessecarily, species are determined by thier ability to breed within the species, so before cow there is not quite cow. Which is why the egg came before the chicken, the not-quite chicken gave birth to the egg with the chicken.
Does intelligence give birth to intelligence? So where did intelligence come from and, how did it arise in man?

It did not arise as a stand alone property, it went through many other phases to get there.

Or so it seems.

 

[Iacchus]

Only silly immaterialists make that claim, what doesn't exist is 'you' or 'me' the self.

Just don't come knocking at my door when you die, because I will say I never knew you.

 

[Iacchus]

It did not arise as a stand alone property, it went through many other phases to get there.

Or so it seems.

How so? And through what process?