Perfection: As in a perfect circle, perfect symmetry or any other definable sense of perfection.

Can it be created, or come to be other than by nature (as in a perfect circle created when a drop of water hits a larger body of water) or by planned precision (as in the use of a device to draw to draw a perfect circle) in any reliably reproducible manner? In other words, is perfection possible other than by nature or predetermined effort?

Does it matter? What is perfection? Can it be defined?

Prince James, I thought I could count on you at least to bite at this one.

As I said in the other thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48481).
Perfect simply means ideally suited.

other than by nature or predetermined effort
:bugeye:
What else is there but these two options?

Lucidgirl:

I am! Just had to give me a second to reply to some other stuff.

My definition of "absolute perfection" is this: The ultimate expression of what logically can have an ultimate expression.

As I said in the other thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48481).
Perfect simply means ideally suited.


:bugeye:
What else is there but these two options?

I like that definition, must have missed it. Other options... Coincidence or chance (maybe that is the same thing). Attempts at perfection without external tools (trying to draw a perfect square without a straight edge to make a line against).

Lucidgirl:

I am! Just had to give me a second to reply to some other stuff.

My definition of "absolute perfection" is this: The ultimate expression of what logically can have an ultimate expression.

Please explain this further. Would an example of what you mean be a singer hitting an exact high C note?

Your statement does not lend itself to understanding. It makes me think of the movie 'The Princess Bride'. One of the characters refers to sound of ultimate suffering. With that as the only explanation many sounds will qualify. Which will qualify as the perfect sound of ultimate suffering (or alternatively, joy, anger, satisfaction, etc.)?

By the way, I'm glad you guys responded. I was so interested when the question occurred to me, that I didn't think it might not interest anyone else until after I had posted it. I guess I can qualify this question as not "THE PERFECT QUESTION".

New empirical statement: The perfect question will leave no self doubt on the part of the questioner as to the importance and relevance of the question.

My definition of "absolute perfection" is this: The ultimate expression of what logically can have an ultimate expression.

Perhaps I am being a bit thick, but what do you mean by "ultimate expression"?

Lucidgirl:

Please explain this further. Would an example of what you mean be a singer hitting an exact high C note?

Perfection tends to deal with more concrete things than human-defined things. A C note is a pretty arbitrary distinction, for instance, so I am unsure if one could speak of that being an "absolute perfection".

Your statement does not lend itself to understanding. It makes me think of the movie 'The Princess Bride'. One of the characters refers to sound of ultimate suffering. With that as the only explanation many sounds will qualify. Which will qualify as the perfect sound of ultimate suffering (or alternatively, joy, anger, satisfaction, etc.)?

Note: I said which can have an ultimate expression. I would argue that joy, anger, satisfaction, suffering, et cetera, do not logically have ultimate expressions, as they are subjective. They can have greater or lesser felt expressions, but no ultimate expression.

New empirical statement: The perfect question will leave no self doubt on the part of the questioner as to the importance and relevance of the question.

Or perhaps the inverse? The perfect question is rooted in the sincerity of the questioner being totally ignorant, such as a blind man from birth asking what seeing is like?

Lucidgirl, One_Raven, since you both asked the same question concerning what "ultimate expression" is, here is my response:

Ultimate expression is the fullest expression of something. Let's take "existence in space", for instance. What would be ultimmte existence in space? Boundless existence in space, or existing throughout all space, that is, ubiquity or omnipresence. One cannot get logically higher than "existing in all places" from the attribute "existing in space", and so to exist in all places is to be perfect in the quality of existence. Omnipotence would be another example, as the ultimate expression of power would be to have power to do anything to everything, save for that which would be logically inconsistant. In essence, "ultimate expression" takes an attribute and brings it to its logical extreme if it has as such, and then claims that would be the perfection of that trait.

"Ultimate expression is the fullest expression of something."

I agree with this, except that I would add to it: "against some set standard."

Pefection simply refers to completeness, wholeness, totality. However, it is always set against a standard. If an original painting is the standard against which a replica is set, then the perfect replica would contain no more and no less than the precise details of the original painting; full detail. If a replica does not contain every detail of the original painting, then it is not complete, and is not a perfect replica of the original painting. If it has every detail of the original painting, and more, then it has exceeded the standard of the original painting, and is therefore not a perfect replica. Thus perfection contains an element of exactitude, precision. Likewise can be said of the C-Note case.

Supreme Perfection would be absolute completeness, totality. Nothing that is possible would not be contained in it, and all that is possible is contained in it. There is nothing beyond Supreme Perfection. It is entirely complete.

Lucidgirl:

[QUOTE]Perfection tends to deal with more concrete things than human-defined things. A C note is a pretty arbitrary distinction, for instance, so I am unsure if one could speak of that being an "absolute perfection".

Here is one of our primary philosiphical differences perhaps. You seem much more comfortable with 'as yet' undefined experiences. Yet you seem uncomfortable when confronted with an absolute and measurable quantity. What are the more concrete things you are referring to as opposed to human-defined things? I'm looking for clarification and qualification of the human state. I can not imagine, though I wish I could, being Omnipresent in space. (Yes, I know you put it much better). I do believe that there are, if not perfect, close to perfect, expressions of emotion.

Note: I said which can have an ultimate expression. I would argue that joy, anger, satisfaction, suffering, et cetera, do not logically have ultimate expressions, as they are subjective. They can have greater or lesser felt expressions, but no ultimate expression.
Not you, Prince James? You're not a skeptic (and I don't mean philosophically) at heart are you? I agree that the above emotions are subjective from external view for the most part. I do believe however, no matter how cold it sounds, if you place a woman who truly loves her husband/man next to a woman who does not and you tell them them both that their husband/man has been murdered in cold blood, you will see the difference. As far as the ultimate expression of subjective quantities/qualities, I suggest we examine protectiveness next, as it offers both biological and emotional imperatives that can be argued.

The perfect question is rooted in the sincerity of the questioner being totally ignorant, such as a blind man from birth asking what seeing is like?
Spellbinding! I am not sure if I agree yet, but I like the idea that the perfect question is one that cannot be answered with ones own knowledge. Is that what you meant?

Who can say whether an expression is ultimate?

The perfect question is rooted in the sincerity of the questioner being totally ignorant, such as a blind man from birth asking what seeing is like?

Spellbinding! I am not sure if I agree yet, but I like the idea that the perfect question is one that cannot be answered with ones own knowledge. Is that what you meant?

Except that if you have no knowledge, you can't ask any questions.

Beyondtimeandspace:

I agree with this, except that I would add to it: "against some set standard."

Pefection simply refers to completeness, wholeness, totality. However, it is always set against a standard. If an original painting is the standard against which a replica is set, then the perfect replica would contain no more and no less than the precise details of the original painting; full detail. If a replica does not contain every detail of the original painting, then it is not complete, and is not a perfect replica of the original painting. If it has every detail of the original painting, and more, then it has exceeded the standard of the original painting, and is therefore not a perfect replica. Thus perfection contains an element of exactitude, precision. Likewise can be said of the C-Note case.

I think it might be worthwhile to categorize perfection in three categories, namely, Absolute Perfection, Lesser Perfection, and Perfection of Utility.

Defined as:

Absolute Perfection: The ultimate expression of that which logically can have an ultimate expression.

Lesser Perfection: Perfect attainment of a definition, such as a C note or a painting.

Perfection of Utility: That which fits a mission criteria.

Supreme Perfection would be absolute completeness, totality. Nothing that is possible would not be contained in it, and all that is possible is contained in it. There is nothing beyond Supreme Perfection. It is entirely complete.

I would argue this would be only Absolute Perfection of existence. See my prior response to Lucidgirl and One_Raven.

Lucidgirl:

Here is one of our primary philosiphical differences perhaps. You seem much more comfortable with 'as yet' undefined experiences. Yet you seem uncomfortable when confronted with an absolute and measurable quantity. What are the more concrete things you are referring to as opposed to human-defined things? I'm looking for clarification and qualification of the human state. I can not imagine, though I wish I could, being Omnipresent in space. (Yes, I know you put it much better). I do believe that there are, if not perfect, close to perfect, expressions of emotion.

Having a quality such as "existence in space" is not something which is arbitrarily determined, but observed and true. That is why I consider it more "concrete".

How can an emotion be expressed in a perfect manner?

Not you, Prince James? You're not a skeptic (and I don't mean philosophically) at heart are you? I agree that the above emotions are subjective from external view for the most part. I do believe however, no matter how cold it sounds, if you place a woman who truly loves her husband/man next to a woman who does not and you tell them them both that their husband/man has been murdered in cold blood, you will see the difference. As far as the ultimate expression of subjective quantities/qualities, I suggest we examine protectiveness next, as it offers both biological and emotional imperatives that can be argued.

I am not a skeptic of love, no. I believe in love quite fine, having experienced it myself. But I do not believe that there can be an ultimate expression of it, which can be stated to be objectively so.

As to the two women then yes, yes most certainly. The difference will be immense. However, I don't find this an "ultimat expression" even so, just a greater expression.

What of protectiveness?

Spellbinding! I am not sure if I agree yet, but I like the idea that the perfect question is one that cannot be answered with ones own knowledge. Is that what you meant?

Yes.

Water:

Who can say whether an expression is ultimate?

If it meets the criteria of something which could not go beyond logically.

How can an emotion be expressed in a perfect manner?

By letting it be what it is.


I am not a skeptic of love, no. I believe in love quite fine, having experienced it myself. But I do not believe that there can be an ultimate expression of it, which can be stated to be objectively so.

Words cannot do love justice. This doesn't mean there is no "ultimate expression" of love.


If it meets the criteria of something which could not go beyond logically.

But who can asses such a thing?

Water:

By letting it be what it is.

At most, the emotion will aspire to a "perfection of utility" in that it expresses what it is supposed to express. But beyond that, I cannot imagine a "greatest expression" or "perfect definition" of an emotion.

Words cannot do love justice. This doesn't mean there is no "ultimate expression" of love.

It is not a matter of the inadequacy of words to describe love (which I find rather a ridiculous notion), but rather, that love does not seem to have a logically dictated ultimate expression. Can you think of anything which would qualify as "the ultimate expression" of love?

But who can asses such a thing?

All rational creatures concur when something is demonstrated to be utterly logical. None can deny that A = A. Axioms are universally valid. They are like the laws of physics themselves, which are the same for all even aside regardless of frame.

I believe that humans invented perfection, for nature is imperfect, according to the definition. Nothing is perfectly symetrical, or even. The only other way I look at perfection is not even a definition, but rather an opinion. If I see someone who is georgous beyond my belief, they'd be perfect (looking) in my mind.

SativaDiva:

If infinity exists within existence, and all existence is energy/space-time, would not omnipresence - a perfection of existence - exist in the Absolute sense? Or could not we describe existence as omnipresent?

Like some greek guy said, perfection can only exist in the mind. Like a circle. It can be perfectly round in the mind, but if we draw a copy of that into the material world, the circle can never be perfect.

This is how the world was created. There is an unconscious "will" to evolve and that will wants to make a copy of itself into the material world. And even the copies, we humans, want to make copies of this copy, by painting something in nature for example.

Perfection can only come when one sees no imperfection.

c7ityi_:

Like some greek guy said, perfection can only exist in the mind. Like a circle. It can be perfectly round in the mind, but if we draw a copy of that into the material world, the circle can never be perfect.

This is how the world was created. There is an unconscious "will" to evolve and that will wants to make a copy of itself into the material world. And even the copies, we humans, want to make copies of this copy, by painting something in nature for example.

I would argue against Plato and you in this case. Please see my arguments for Absolute Perfection here and in "The Imperfection of Perfection".

Lucidgirl, are you considering "perfection" as a noun or "perfect " as an adjective? They are two entirely different things. Perfect can be defined, but perfection, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Water:

It is not a matter of the inadequacy of words to describe love (which I find rather a ridiculous notion), but rather, that love does not seem to have a logically dictated ultimate expression. Can you think of anything which would qualify as "the ultimate expression" of love?


I'm sure this is an extremely debatable topic, probably worthy of it's own thread. I'll make an attempt. How about the ultimate expression of love as the willingness of ultimate sacrifice for a loved one? Meeting ones own death to spare a loved ones life, or suffering the loss of a loved one in ones life because you know in the end it will be in the best interest of that person. Being completely honest and vulnerable to the person one loves, although the consequesces may be very painful. These are just some of the examples I came up with. I guess I would have to put the first as the ultimate expression of love. Complete selflessness in the cause of protecting a loved one.

Lucidgirl, are you considering "perfection" as a noun or "perfect " as an adjective? They are two entirely different things. Perfect can be defined, but perfection, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

That's an astute differenciation. My answer is both. Perfect - as in a perfect circle. Perfection - as in achieving perfection. I'm open to the arguments on both sides about whether or not either can or does exist or is possble to achieve. If a perfect thing is possible, than I would reason that perfection is possible. If you can have a pefect sphere, than a sphere that was once imperfect can reach a point of perfection through internal or external forces. The means by which it achieves perfection is immaterial.

Lucidgirl:

I'm sure this is an extremely debatable topic, probably worthy of it's own thread. I'll make an attempt. How about the ultimate expression of love as the willingness of ultimate sacrifice for a loved one? Meeting ones own death to spare a loved ones life, or suffering the loss of a loved one in ones life because you know in the end it will be in the best interest of that person. Being completely honest and vulnerable to the person one loves, although the consequesces may be very painful. These are just some of the examples I came up with. I guess I would have to put the first as the ultimate expression of love. Complete selflessness in the cause of protecting a loved one.

I do not know fi this could be truly classified as an absolutely perfect love. Could not one feel very little for this person and still do this? What if two people who sacrifice themselves for someone they love, are judged side by side, and one is fond to have loved the other person more? What about someone who, instead of dying for that person, kills for that person? Or gives a great deal of things to that person?

Lucidgirl:
I do not know fi this could be truly classified as an absolutely perfect love. Could not one feel very little for this person and still do this? What if two people who sacrifice themselves for someone they love, are judged side by side, and one is fond to have loved the other person more? What about someone who, instead of dying for that person, kills for that person? Or gives a great deal of things to that person?

I may have to conceed that to decide on the 'ultimate expression' of love is so subjective as to be unprovable when you compare one expression to another. I will argue with your statement a little however. A love can be perfect without being returned. For instance, I can have perfect love, if we were to agree that it could exist, for a person that I felt worthy of it even if for some reason, they could not or would not return it. I guess to begin to define perfect love I would start with the source or cause of the feeling and the worthiness of the recipient. Maybe it would be more illustrative to say that if someone loved someone for their honor, but the person they loved was actually not at all honorable, that would not be perfect love. :bugeye: It sounds a little lame now that's it's in black and white, but I guess I'll leave it for discussion sake.

Lucidgirl:

The Sufis would actually claim that unrequitted love is -superior- to requitted love, due to the fact that one cannot possibly gain anything out of loving someone who does not love one back aside from love. The Sufis consider Shaitan/Iblis/Satan as an example of this expression of love, due to his love for God being incapable of ever being returned. However, I would, again, argue that there is no ultimate expression of love as it is wholely subjective, yes. It would be like asking for "the perfect smell".

Only nature is perfect. Humans can never be perfect.

Humans are perfect.

C7ityi:

How?

surely perfection exists only in the eye of the beholder

chocolate?

Sniffy:

See some of my arguments.

the human brain?
a ripple from a pebble thrown in water?
my reflection?

SativaDiva:

If infinity exists within existence, and all existence is energy/space-time, would not omnipresence - a perfection of existence - exist in the Absolute sense? Or could not we describe existence as omnipresent?
I see your point. I was merely thinking of the adjective form of "perfect". If used as a noun, I can understand where you're coming from.

Sativa Diva:

Yes, we're using it as a noun.

Lucidgirl:

The Sufis would actually claim that unrequitted love is -superior- to requitted love, due to the fact that one cannot possibly gain anything out of loving someone who does not love one back aside from love. The Sufis consider Shaitan/Iblis/Satan as an example of this expression of love, due to his love for God being incapable of ever being returned. However, I would, again, argue that there is no ultimate expression of love as it is wholely subjective, yes. It would be like asking for "the perfect smell".

Ummmm. I have read this at a most poignant time. I say the Sufis are wrong. Unrequited love and requited love are no different because they are not a choice. You do not get to choose who you love. Therefore, it is no greater to love one doesn't love you back than it is to love one who does. You would love them whether they loved you or not. As for the perfect smell, how could possibly dispute that it exists?

The smell just before it rains is perfect 'for the time just before it rains'. The scent of a rose matches perfectly with the scent you would expect from such a flower. There does not need to be ONE perfect smell. Different moment can have different perfections.

A sincere tear, whether of joy or sorrow, rolling down a cheek, can be a perfect expression of emotion more beautiful than a million diamonds. O.K. Yes, I can tend towards the romatic, but I do believe that there are perfect expressions of emotion. I do see the need to follow that with some definition, but unfortunately, I have to say that it's something you know when you see it.

I would like to take the definition further than that.

Lucidgirl:

Ummmm. I have read this at a most poignant time. I say the Sufis are wrong. Unrequited love and requited love are no different because they are not a choice. You do not get to choose who you love. Therefore, it is no greater to love one doesn't love you back than it is to love one who does. You would love them whether they loved you or not. As for the perfect smell, how could possibly dispute that it exists?

Surely we decide who we love? People decide to fall out of love, and fall in love, all the time. Choosing to continue to persist in a relationship, continue to say "I love you", to even provoke the feeling.

What would be the "perfect smell"?

The smell just before it rains is perfect 'for the time just before it rains'. The scent of a rose matches perfectly with the scent you would expect from such a flower. There does not need to be ONE perfect smell. Different moment can have different perfections.

Okay, but I meant in an absolute sense. This is a perfection of utility.

A sincere tear, whether of joy or sorrow, rolling down a cheek, can be a perfect expression of emotion more beautiful than a million diamonds. O.K. Yes, I can tend towards the romatic, but I do believe that there are perfect expressions of emotion. I do see the need to follow that with some definition, but unfortunately, I have to say that it's something you know when you see it.

It isn't really objectively perfect, but if it fullfills its purpose, it reaches a perfection of utility at least.

Perfection is when there is nothing more for you to gain, like when you score full marks for a test/exam they call it a 'perfect score' because you can't get any higher. Because of this on the overall scale nothing can be perfect because there is always something more to gain.