What is Perfection?

[Mercutio]

And what if it were just a matter of rolling out carpet so to speak? Doesn't that pretty much coincide with the idea of evolution as well?

Ah, more questions. I'd be glad to answer...but please tell me...what do you mean by rolling out carpet? (you say "so to speak", so I assume there must be something more to your words). Near as I can see, it has about as much to do with evolution as plankton had to do with the development of the internal combustion engine.

 

[uruk]

It's pretty clear to me. Perfection is defined by the sum of the parts which constitute the whole. In other words perfection is "wholeness."

I did not ask you what perfection is defined by. I asked you what is your definition of perfection. So, you say perfection is "wholeness". Wholeness of what? Is the wholeness of the Nazi regime perfection? Is the wholeness of crime perfection? Is the wholeness of suffering perfection?
Please state a clear definition without resorting to obfuscation, half-answers, or poeticisim.

 

[Iacchus]

Ah...blame the victim. I have a dear friend whose son died of brain cancer--a very rare form which took him at 16 years old. He was otherwise healthy, did not smoke, ate well, exercised...please tell me, and more importantly tell my friend, what is was that her son was unaware of which caused him to die. Explain to her how it was his fault. Please, because her smile is still not the same, 10 years after cancer took him.

Tell me how an aware person will not get the cold that an unaware person will, given that both of them are exposed to the virus (or are you suggesting that we should be aware of things on such a microscopic scale as to render your suggestion laughable?).

Tell me how another friend, whose baby was born without a cerebral cortex, had her baby die through a lack of awareness. Should she be aware of things at the level of the genetic composition of her fetus?

I strongly suggest you simply abandon this line and admit you were wrong.

Your appeal here is to emotionalism and sentimism and is the very thing you and others often accuse me of doing. So no, I'm not a bad person just because I don't agree with you. By the way, there are any number of factors that could come into play here, most of which, if not all, could be attributable to ignorance.

 

[uruk]

Yes, if we don't want to get cancer, it may require that we make certain changes in lifestyle in order not to do so. And if we're unaware and don't care, then we're ignorant.

Your "absolute" ignorance is very telling. Everyone has cancer cells in them. You already have cancer. What is it that you are unaware of that caused you get those cancer cells?

 

[Iacchus]

I did not ask you what perfection is defined by. I asked you what is your definition of perfection. So, you say perfection is "wholeness". Wholeness of what? Is the wholeness of the Nazi regime perfection? Is the wholeness of crime perfection? Is the wholeness of suffering perfection?
Please state a clear definition without resorting to obfuscation, half-answers, or poeticisim.

How could you know such things were bad, if it weren't from the standpoint of wholeness? Evil is usually self-destructive by the way, and couldn't stand if there wasn't something else to destroy.

So, perhaps in this sense the fruits were ready to be picked and it was time to wipe the slate clean ... and, get back to the notion of perfection.

 

[Mercutio]

By the way, there are any number of factors that could come into play here, most of which, if not all, could be attributable to ignorance.

Please explain how. That is all I am asking. You have, thus far, only made claims.

And yes, my argument is emotional. Something had to break through; logic did not. My argument being emotional does not make it invalid--it addresses your claim. Please address it.

 

[Iacchus]

Ah, more questions. I'd be glad to answer...but please tell me...what do you mean by rolling out carpet? (you say "so to speak", so I assume there must be something more to your words). Near as I can see, it has about as much to do with evolution as plankton had to do with the development of the internal combustion engine.

I'm saying the design was already there, and it was just a matter of allowing it to unfold, you know, like the petals of a flower. What would a flower be, if it wasn't already "predisposed" to being a flower? There's nothing arbitrary about it being a flower in the least.

 

[Iacchus]

Your "absolute" ignorance is very telling. Everyone has cancer cells in them. You already have cancer. What is it that you are unaware of that caused you get those cancer cells?

Well, thank you very much! I was unaware of that. However, who's to say that I may or may not be dying from cancer at this very moment?

 

[Iacchus]

Please explain how. That is all I am asking. You have, thus far, only made claims.

And yes, my argument is emotional. Something had to break through; logic did not. My argument being emotional does not make it invalid--it addresses your claim. Please address it.

Well let's say it's something as simple as environmental factors, where some corporate exective who, through a total lack of awareness, decides it's okay to dump poisonous chemicals into the landfill and poison the groundwater? In which case we're likely to have suffering for all kinds of folks.

 

[Z]

Your ignorance is astounding, Iacchus.

'Perfection' is not 'wholeness'; rather, 'wholeness' is one factor of
'perfection'. Let's start by correcting that idiocy right of the bat.

Perfection is the state of being without a flaw or defect, an ideal embodiment of a concept. The key being, there has to be a concept in order for there to be an ideal. Perfection is, therefore, possible only when a presupposed concept is formed; without someone to form this concept, perfection is non-existant.

Even if we assume a Creator, we cannot say the Universe is perfect. Without any knowledge of the Creator's concept of the Universe, we have no way of knowing whether it is perfect or flawed. Much like the Bible story of Adam and Eve, it may well prove that the Creator made some mistakes (Certainly, A&E were not perfect - they were disobedient).

In fact, if you do choose to look at the Bible as a key to understanding God, you can clearly see that God isn't even perfect. God makes mistakes; God has flaws. God is, after all, only human.

However, avoid the Bible for a bit, and we can see that there simply is no way to determine universal perfection.

As to ignorance vs. suffering, while I will agree that ignorance is one possible cause of suffering, it is NOT the ONLY cause of suffering. To maintain otherwise is a fallacy, Iacchus.

May I suggest a new therapist? Or some combination of chemical prescriptives, to help treat your imbalances?

 

[Iacchus]

Your ignorance is astounding, Iacchus.

'Perfection' is not 'wholeness'; rather, 'wholeness' is one factor of
'perfection'. Let's start by correcting that idiocy right of the bat.

Perfection is wholeness which, includes everything.

Perfection is the state of being without a flaw or defect, an ideal embodiment of a concept. The key being, there has to be a concept in order for there to be an ideal. Perfection is, therefore, possible only when a presupposed concept is formed; without someone to form this concept, perfection is non-existant.

Perhaps you should try reading the original post again?

Even if we assume a Creator, we cannot say the Universe is perfect. Without any knowledge of the Creator's concept of the Universe, we have no way of knowing whether it is perfect or flawed. Much like the Bible story of Adam and Eve, it may well prove that the Creator made some mistakes (Certainly, A&E were not perfect - they were disobedient).

However, we are quite capable of assessing that everthing serves the purpose of the whole, even when it only is relative. Why? Because it may very well be an absolute. In fact, wherever you look around you, you can't help but notice this is the case.

In fact, if you do choose to look at the Bible as a key to understanding God, you can clearly see that God isn't even perfect. God makes mistakes; God has flaws. God is, after all, only human.

Just because we may or may not anthropomorphize God (in order to make Him more approachable perhaps?), does not make Him any less perfect.

However, avoid the Bible for a bit, and we can see that there simply is no way to determine universal perfection.

Existence is absolute.

As to ignorance vs. suffering, while I will agree that ignorance is one possible cause of suffering, it is NOT the ONLY cause of suffering. To maintain otherwise is a fallacy, Iacchus.

An example please?

Suffering is typically the result of the lack of awareness. But the awareness of what? That which is more ideal or perfect perhaps? So, if that there were case, suffering serves its purpose in the sense that it opens the eyes of the ignorant.

Now, what does that say?

May I suggest a new therapist? Or some combination of chemical prescriptives, to help treat your imbalances?

Only if you go first ...

 

[Iacchus]

Even if we assume a Creator, we cannot say the Universe is perfect. Without any knowledge of the Creator's concept of the Universe, we have no way of knowing whether it is perfect or flawed. Much like the Bible story of Adam and Eve, it may well prove that the Creator made some mistakes (Certainly, A&E were not perfect - they were disobedient).

Matter-of-fact this was the very sin in the Garden of Eden, the denial of Unity as a whole which, is what Adam and Eve were supposed to represent (the Yin and Yang if you will), through the partaking of knowledge ... instead of living by intuition. At which point they became separate from the whole and noticed they were naked, as a sign of their separation. Hence, there's been emnity between men and women -- and God -- ever since.

 

[Dancing David]

How so? And through what process?

The possible evolution of intelligence is a great field , especialy when you involve the compatative ethology from other animals.

First is the question of how sensation arose, like the developement of eye spots and the like.

But more important in humans is the process that led to the developement of the large brain with it's convoluted surface.

I believe that it goes back to the hominids that stood up and began to evolve an upright form, apes already have a relativly restricted pelvic bone, so they have a longer neotany for thier babies. I believe that gibbons have the shortest neotany and chimps the longest. (Neotany is the period of dependance upon the parents.)

When the hominids began to walk upright the pelvic passage became smaller in the females. So for the babies to continue to develope large heads the period of neotany was extended, the baby is born with a smaller head and needs to develop longer outside the womb. We know of at least three if not more forms of homonids, Lucy is a 'gracile' homonid, as opposed to austrolapithecus borsei.

So the idea is that what began as a mechanism for adaptation coping with upright gait, increasing neotany to compensate for smaller pelvis, later became an adaptation to increasing neotany for developement of a larger brain in general.(As a possible mechanism influencing human intelligence). So in this scenario the increased intelligence of the homonid that led to homo sapiens sapiens began as a compensation trait for the upright gait, and later became an adaptation to larger brains.

 

[Z]

HGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


Iacchus, you are the New Clown Prince!

Rad, yer fired - you may assume the role of irritating hanger-on.



(j/k Rad, I know how sensitive you can be)

Perfection is wholeness which, includes everything.

Nope. Consider the following definitions. NOWHERE in there does it say that Perfection is Wholeness - that's utter nonsense made up... by you.

So let's say we took perfection and considered it as a whole. And we began to break it up into little pieces. How long do you think it would take to realize that none of these pieces were perfect, in relation to the whole? So, how do we know for a fact that the Universe, taken as a whole, does not also entail this notion of perfection? If so, then what might that suggest into how it came into being?

Ahhh.. I see. Your primary premise is at fault.

There's no such thing as perfection to be taken as a whole, Iacchus. Perfection is not an object, but an abstract quality; as such, you can't 'take it apart' any more than you can take apart heat, or beauty, or large. There are no 'pieces' to perfection; there is no 'whole' to be considered.

You then perform the further fallacy of comparing an abstract ideal to a concrete object - Perfection vs. Universe. You might as well compare Ugly vs. Tree or Bright vs. Woodpecker. Total nonsense, once again.

Comparing the whole of the Universe to an abstract idea in no way makes a valid comparison; the fact is, the Universe cannot be compared to Perfection, because they are two entirely different concepts. Further, no suggestion whatsoever about how they came into being is made by this non-sensical comparison.

Thanks for pointing out your original post - Now I can see how flawed this all was to begin with.

However, we are quite capable of assessing that everthing serves the purpose of the whole, even when it only is relative. Why? Because it may very well be an absolute. In fact, wherever you look around you, you can't help but notice this is the case.

How so? How are we capable of assessing that everything serves the purpose of the whole, if the whole, in fact, has no purpose? We cannot determine the purpose of the whole, and therefore cannot assume the whole HAS a purpose; thus, we cannot assess that everything serves the whole or the purpose of the whole, since we cannot determine the existance of a purpose to the whole.

However, if everything readily served a unified purpose, such as the individual parts of the arrow have readily apparent functions, we could perhaps deduce a unified purpose - and, no, just EXISTING is not a purpose; it is a state. Yet it's plainly obvious, just looking around you, that nothing serves any one purpose. The lamp next to me serves me by providing me with light; yet is drains electricity and costs me money. The cup before me serves me by holding coffee, but fails to keep out bugs. I have no idea WHAT purpose the hook in the ceiling has - none at all to me. Surely it served some purpose to someone, but it certainly doesn't serve any one unified purpose.

And in any case, remove all these objects from the room, and it is still a room. The only things I observe which serve the room's 'wholeness' are its walls, floor, and ceiling; I'm on the second story, so the floor has to count; and there is a third story, so the ceiling has to count. Oh, and the doorway - not the door itself, nor even the windows, or plaster on the walls, or lights. Everything else is extraneous to the 'wholeness' of the room.

However, as a Study, the room would not be whole without bookshelves, books, the three computers, seating, electricity, light, computer furniture, etc. Yet the coffee cup, christmas lights, ceiling fan, etc. are extraneous to the Study.

In fact, as I look around me, I see many layers of 'wholeness' and 'extraneous' factors - none of which serves any unified purpose at all. It's all rather higgly-piggly, in fact. Much like the Universe.

Just because we may or may not anthropomorphize God (in order to make Him more approachable perhaps?), does not make Him any less perfect.

At least you're right there - assuming God is perfect. But at least you admit the Bible is screwy.

Existence is absolute.

Again, define absolute! Or, rather, tell me in which SENSE that you feel existence is absolute, and how this in any way relates to "However, avoid the Bible for a bit, and we can see that there simply is no way to determine universal perfection."

Your statement that 'suffering is typically caused by a lack of awareness' is complete nonsense, now that I look at it. I would suggest that suffering is actually caused by awareness - you have to be aware of conditions that cause suffering to suffer. If you suffer from hunger, you are certainly aware of the uncomfortable feeling of hunger, and the awareness that an opposite state exists. If you are in pain, or tired, or in sorrow, it is only because you are aware that there is a better state in which to exist. However, you can be afflicted and not suffer at all. If one is blind, but has no awareness of any other state, how can they suffer? If one suffers horribly from an allergy to shrimp, but is either isolated from humanity, or living in a community where everyone suffers the same allergy, then are they really suffering? Or have they declared shrimp to be poisonous?

(That last one comes from personal experience, after a fashion: I am probably one of the only people around whose skin is immune to the specific mechanism by which poison oak, poison ivy, and poison sumac operate. In other words - completely immune. It wasn't until I was 14 that I realized finally that this was abnormal, and that everyone else wasn't just suffering from some allergic reaction - but I digress.)

Matter-of-fact this was the very sin in the Garden of Eden, the denial of Unity as a whole which, is what Adam and Eve were supposed to represent (the Yin and Yang if you will), through the partaking of knowledge ... instead of intuition. At which point they became separate from the whole and noticed they were naked, as a sign of their separation. Hence, there's been emnity between men and women -- and God -- ever since.

And your source of this is what? At least you do recognize that the Garden of Eden is allegorical - something many people can't seem to accept. But what is the purpose of this allegory? To assert dominion of Man over Woman and Animal. (Personally, I've never known emnity between men and women that didn't stem directly from one or the other acting like a fool).

At any rate - first rate comedy, Iacchus, though I do suggest we lose the 'suffering' routine, this might put-off part of the audience.

 

[Dancing David]

I think the word we may be looking for here is "predisposition." Certainly, if were not predisposed towards intelligence, we would not be intelligent would we?

Yes but that predisposition develops and is exploited differently by different species.

the very-far-from human, had only a small predisposition to intelligence, the far-from human had more(or some other trait that later was exploited to become intelligence), the not-quite human has a great predisposition to intelligence and so on, some species like slugs have a predispostion to intelligence, it is just less that that of humans.

take the rabbit, a very short neotany followed by almost maturity, while it has a medium prediposition to intelligence, it also has a very large set of stereotypic behaviors, because it is adapted to have a shorter potential life. The wolf has a very long neotany but less stereotypoic behaviors and a greater predisposition to intelligence.

So varying creatures benefit from varying degrees of predisposition.

 

[Dancing David]

Suffering is typically the result of the lack of awareness. But the awareness of what? That which is more ideal or perfect perhaps? So, if that there were case, suffering serves its purpose in the sense that it opens the eyes of the ignorant.

Uh, lets see in a domestic violence relationship the perpetrator is very aware of the fact that they are causing suffering, they practise and refine the levels of suffering that they use to control the other person.
The victims are also very aware of the suffering and the fear, they learn to avoid and control the situation to try to decrease the amount of suffering that they experience.

So in this case the suffering exists and the awareness of the suffering exists.

How is it perfect?

When you have an intestinal parasite and it causes you extreme pain, is that perfection?

 

[Dancing David]

It's pretty clear to me. Perfection is defined by the sum of the parts which constitute the whole. In other words perfection is "wholeness."

Gee , is that how you would counsel the victims of rape or tirture Iachuss.

"It is just great that you suffered because it becomes perfection in the great picture."


How does the pain and death of innocents contribute to perfection Iachuss?

 

[Dancing David]

And what if it were just a matter of rolling out carpet so to speak? Doesn't that pretty much coincide with the idea of evolution as well?

Yeak if it is a carpet that is more like a giant vat full of jello that flows and changes depending upon the contingent nature of the floor.

In general a carpet is preformed and preshaped so this is a weak analogy at best and a truely mistaken metaphor.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, if we don't want to get cancer, it may require that we make certain changes in lifestyle in order not to do so. And if we're unaware and don't care, then we're ignorant.

Iachuss, I will assume that you are very naive and callow as opposed to just being a stuck up twit who is blind to the pain of others.

You are a real trooper, my friends who have died of cancer had no idea what and where or any role that exposure to toxins may have played in thier cancer.

One died of a brain tumor after two yeras, there was no invovement of a known exposure risk. His awareness of his life was very good and he led a heathly one.
One died of lymphoma after six months, there was no involvement of a known exposusre risk. he tried to control his cholesterol and was very aware of that.

The suffering that I went through and my mother(her boyfriend dies of the glial balstome), the wife of my other friend and all thier friend and family. There is no perfection in that.

You seem very shallow Iachuss.

 

[Dancing David]

How could you know such things were bad, if it weren't from the standpoint of wholeness? Evil is usually self-destructive by the way, and couldn't stand if there wasn't something else to destroy.

So, perhaps in this sense the fruits were ready to be picked and it was time to wipe the slate clean ... and, get back to the notion of perfection.

the notion you can't and won't define.

there is no perfection in suffering Iachuss, thirteen million children dead because of lack of treatment, children and adults sold into the sexual rape industry, others killed so they can harvest the oragans.

But you have your head in your personal little sopace and you want to say that the world is perfect in it's wholeness.

A wholeness that doesn't care, a wholeness that allows for parents to torture thier children.

No perfection Iachuss.

You just throw out vauge terms Iachuss, you haven't defined perfection, your perfection of the whole seems flawed.

How can the whole be perfect are you saying that suffering is perfect.