Does the definition of perfection necessarily mean something exclusively good? Would something exclusively good be perfect?

Good and bad are subjective. Perfection prerequisites objectivity.

Saying that "the Good" is subjective seems like an easy way out. So let me rephrase: If you are looking for "The Good" are you also looking for "Perfection?"

What "Good"?

Define what you mean by this, and then the answer might be easier to find.....

Would something exclusively good be perfect? Yes I think exclusively good is used in its rights here. Exclusively good or what society calls "solidarity" walks above perfection. Usualy when you can't find good or perfection anywhere you look for the right thing that fits all at that particular time. And usually if you look carefuly enough that is all you need, thats perfection.

Saying that "the Good" is subjective seems like an easy way out. So let me rephrase: If you are looking for "The Good" are you also looking for "Perfection?"
you have the answer to this yourself, when you are looking for "The Good" are you also looking for "Perfection?

are you looking for us to tell you what you are looking for?

Saying that "the Good" is subjective seems like an easy way out. So let me rephrase: If you are looking for "The Good" are you also looking for "Perfection?"
It isn't the easy way out. When talking about 'good', you have to ask "good for whom?", and on that qualifier alone it is subjective.

Perfection on the other hand is absolute. It's worth is unchanging from every aspect. Therefore it is objective.

Looking for 'good', I'm usually looking for my own good or the good of my peers. Looking for perfection I'm usually looking for ascension, enlightenment or such. Two completely different ballgames.

I don't think the two can be used synonymously. Yes, "good" is subjective, and "perfect", while being also subjective, is more objective. At the same time, "good" usually has two core meanings; either to describe something "not evil", or to grade the quality of something.

In the former, one might postulate that "perfect" would therefore be the most "non evil", as in a utopian society, for example. However, what *is* utopian still differs completely between people. In the latter, it could be said that "perfect" would be the highest echelon in the hierarchy (i.e. good, better, best/perfect). Even then, best is not necessarily synonymous with perfect.

So to say that something that is exclusively good is therefore perfect would be incorrect, I feel. Something, to someone, can always be "better" than it already is, however "perfect" it may already be. Water may be exclusively good for us, but it is not necessarily perfect. Cancer research may be exclusively good in terms of its purpose, but since there is no cure, it is not perfect. (Of course, the debate about cancer is a completely different story)

One man's "perfect" is another man's "good", if you follow my train of thought.

Just some ideas... everything is pretty much still left to interpretation.

If you are speaking of the Platonic "Form of Good", then by being the greatest logical expression of a certain attribute - in this case, goodness - then yes, it would be perfect. Anything which would take the logical expression of a specific attribute to its greatest potential limit, would be, by definition, perfect in that regard. Omnipresence, for instance, is surely the perfection of presence.

Does the definition of perfection necessarily mean something exclusively good? Would something exclusively good be perfect?

You'll have to define 'perfection' and 'good' for the question or an answer to be coherent.

I feel that perfection is something that we aspire to because we percieve it to be good or better than where we are.

So perfection would normally suggest that which is good from our individual perspectives.

I feel that what you are questioning is the association of perfection being good.

That one would not consider a personal tragedy as being a symptom of perfection but more a symptom of imperfection. Thus the adjective perfect is always aligned with what we deem as "good" or more importantly "best".

Certainly in a poetic sense there could exist "Perfect evil" but of course this is an appropriate expression for something that deisres evil. But one wonders what would happen if that entity that aspires to perfect evil would fall victim to that same evil. Would it still be considered perfect evil?

if an entity desired evil it would be safe to say that that entity perceives that evil to be good.

The first question that comes to me in discussions of the good is what we are to decide is its opposite: is it evil, or is it bad?

"perfection would normally suggest that which is good from our individual perspectives." -Quantum Quack

You're saying meaning is relative to context, which is saying that the good (as an abstraction) is subjective, which means that morality is opinion.

We strive for the good, but it's just a projection of our currrent self with an imagined potential self with all the 'best' things (in our circumstances and relative self-image) which we aspire to. In this sense, everyone on earth things that they're a good person.

The problem with this (to me, anyway) is that it doesn't leave us room to say that anyone is wrong for doing anything. I think, on the contrary, there are many ways to be and to do wrong and to do evil. But you'll respond that this is simply my subjective opinion on the good.

The problem with this (again) is that the appeal to subjectivity is a rejection of the terms of the argument, in the sense that we cannot accomplish anything unless we first establish the legitmacy of the others' standards and values.

Where to draw the line when our standards differ is already politics, so we've gotten quickly beyond ethics!

Appealing to subjectivity in this case is much easier than giving an opinion on what the good is.

Saying it's subjective amounts to saying it's nothing, which is worse than useless--it's nihilism. Moral valuations are created but that doesn't mean they are thereby artificial. It also doesn't mean they're perfect. As Prince James has explained:

"Anything which would take the logical expression of a specific attribute to its greatest potential limit, would be, by definition, perfect in that regard."
Taking this idea of perfection alongside the idea that each human has a different idea of what 'good' is leads us to question what a perfect conception of the 'good' might be; since all human creations are flawed, and since we create the good (as well as the bad, the evil as a matter of culture, history and taste) then our conceptions of the 'good' are all flawed.

Suppose however that there is something which is purely good. I argue that it cannot be a physical object, since all material things are imperfect, or can be twisted by human hands towards malice, cruelty, towards bad ends, towards imperfection.

What do you think of Kant's assertion that nothing can be called good without qualification except a good will? I.e., that no action unless it is performed with a good will can be considered 'good.'

JoeTheMan:

Taking this idea of perfection alongside the idea that each human has a different idea of what 'good' is leads us to question what a perfect conception of the 'good' might be; since all human creations are flawed, and since we create the good (as well as the bad, the evil as a matter of culture, history and taste) then our conceptions of the 'good' are all flawed.

Yes, it would seem that good -has- no logical greatest expression. It is like asking for the greatest expression of "turkey" or "smoke".

Suppose however that there is something which is purely good. I argue that it cannot be a physical object, since all material things are imperfect, or can be twisted by human hands towards malice, cruelty, towards bad ends, towards imperfection.

I would agree with this.

What do you think of Kant's assertion that nothing can be called good without qualification except a good will? I.e., that no action unless it is performed with a good will can be considered 'good.'

I would assert that Kant is fond of creating meaningless conceptions. Since a good will can only be subjective, and cannot exist without an object, that the notion that a "good will" is the only thing which can be considered good without qualification, is ridiculous. Moreover, this concept shows its impotence due to the fact that an action, even if not propelled by a good will, can produce a good effect.

Suppose however that there is something which is purely good. I argue that it cannot be a physical object,a good sword is a good sword. a good bomb is a good bomb. a good car is a good car is a good car. the object is good even if its use results in something destructive (evil)

The "perfect good" is what Socrates continued to allude to.

It is the innate directives of a "pure" direct conscience.... which can only be read from an organism free from endogenous toxins (mainly heavy metals)

Such "good" would ensure perennial life.

"perfect" - to me, is colloquially used as an the extremely general "without flaw". that usage is logically dubious, as "flaw" is a highly subjective term as has been pointed out in various ways. for the term to have utility, i think of perfection as "flawlessly satisfying a defined/desired function". as such, that which defines its own function must be perfect so long as it doesn't find itself dis-satisfied (like humans can). thus, the universe is perfect, though if your desire for it to function to your ends is not satisfied, you'll probably disagree (which I find irrational, as if this is so, your desires are out of sync with reality - reassessing the desires would seem imperative).

OK, I see how individual objects--like swords, bombs and cars--are 'good' when they perform the functions for which they were designed well. But humans didn't create the universe, cannot fathom its ultimate purpose, so how can we say the universe has a function? The only things which have 'functions' are those which are made by and for humans.
But just because I think we cannot talk about the universe as a whole having a function doesn't mean the universe cannot, therefore, be good or bad (depending on your perspective.) So I don't think we need to align the good with proper functioning--perhaps good 'design'?

PrinceJames:
"Moreover, this concept [good will] shows its impotence due to the fact that an action, even if not propelled by a good will, can produce a good effect."
A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes or because of its competence to achieve some intended end; it is good only because of its willing (i.e., it is good in itself.) Even if this will is wholly unable to accomplish its purpose, it would still be good.
But even Kant admits that there is something strange in this idea of the absolute worth of the will alone, in which no account is taken of any use. :)

I think only being which was completely perfect could also be completely good.

But I think conscious beings cannot be completely good or perfect, because we are flawed and because of free will.

The perfect assassin, the perfect torturer, the perfect sufferer, the perfect nuke...

perfection is subjective to the seeker,


life is perfect,


heaven and hell is on earth and in your own mind,

JoeTheMan:

A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes or because of its competence to achieve some intended end; it is good only because of its willing (i.e., it is good in itself.) Even if this will is wholly unable to accomplish its purpose, it would still be good.
But even Kant admits that there is something strange in this idea of the absolute worth of the will alone, in which no account is taken of any use.

Yes, a good will is not good because of its effect, and that is precisely why it is meaningless. It might as well not exist, as we might just speak of good effects. Moreover, what is the "good" to which it wills?

EmptyForceOfQi

Perfection is not subjective to the seeker. Things which can have a logical greatest expression are would have an objective perfection if such greatest expression was reached. Omnipresence, for instance, would be the logical greatest expression of presence, thus it would be objectively perfect.

PrinceJames:
I'm not saying I agree with Kant's conception, merely bringing it up as an example of what the good is. It's a little problematic, because it's circular.
You asked:
"Moreover, what is the "good" to which it wills?"

OK, so the only good-in-itself IS a good will, which is the only thing which is unconditionally good. It's basically the foundation of an intensional ethics, where motives are more important than consequences. Motives are the subjective and invisible intentions driving actions, whereas consequences are objective, empirical results of actions. Kant would say that the ends can never justify the means, that we must have good intentions in order to call ourselves good.

The problem is that good intentions don't necessarily or even frequently lead to positive outcomes.

But since we're interested in doing ethics and determining which actions are 'right' and 'wrong,' which ones are 'good' and 'evil', we'll need more than circular definitions of the good.

It's unclear to me at this point whether such a definition exists. Any suggestions?

JoeTheMan:

I'm not saying I agree with Kant's conception, merely bringing it up as an example of what the good is. It's a little problematic, because it's circular.

All ready understood. But an interesting topic, isn't it?

OK, so the only good-in-itself IS a good will, which is the only thing which is unconditionally good. It's basically the foundation of an intensional ethics, where motives are more important than consequences. Motives are the subjective and invisible intentions driving actions, whereas consequences are objective, empirical results of actions. Kant would say that the ends can never justify the means, that we must have good intentions in order to call ourselves good.

Yet the real problem with this is how are we to know when an action has such good will behind it? It's a shadowy notion which can never be directly perceived. We must also ask whether or not Kant's conception of pure altruism can be construed as reality, considering the self cannot escape its will to benefit itself in one way or another. To value something is all ready to place it as something for the self to obtain for its worth and value, therefore making it a selfish action, which is not fully directed at some notion of "goodness" all together.

The problem is that good intentions don't necessarily or even frequently lead to positive outcomes.

Yes, that old adage "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind.

But since we're interested in doing ethics and determining which actions are 'right' and 'wrong,' which ones are 'good' and 'evil', we'll need more than circular definitions of the good.

I concur wholeheartedly.

It's unclear to me at this point whether such a definition exists. Any suggestions?

I'm actually working on a new conception of ethics, which, although this may sound odd, might be construed as some sort of midpoint betwixt Confucius and Nietzsche. When I formulate it fully, I'll make sure it gets to you.

I don't believe that perfection or good exists.

Yet the real problem with this is how are we to know when an action has such good will behind it? It's a shadowy notion which can never be directly perceived. We must also ask whether or not Kant's conception of pure altruism can be construed as reality, considering the self cannot escape its will to benefit itself in one way or another. To value something is all ready to place it as something for the self to obtain for its worth and value, therefore making it a selfish action, which is not fully directed at some notion of "goodness" all together.

Sort of reminds me of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". The presumption of innocence or even "the benefit of the doubt" being similar issues.

I don't believe that perfection or good exists.

Good, that's perfect. :rolleyes:

Good, that's perfect. :rolleyes:

Almost perfect: it would be better if it wasn't merely a belief.

Almost perfect: it would be better if it wasn't merely a belief.

:)

What more could it really be though eh?

Does the definition of perfection necessarily mean something exclusively good? Would something exclusively good be perfect?
Excuse me for intervening but wouldn’t it be more efficient if we first give a definition of ‘good’ and ‘perfect’ before we proceed into defining what the meaning of the definition of good in relation to perfection is?

Just a simple query.

But please proceed in the analysis.
Watching hamsters running in circles is great entertainment.

I would suggest that perfection, as defined by the idea of stability, self-reliance and harmony, is detrimental to life in all its forms.
Life is a consequence or a reaction against instability, flux and disharmony.
The mind is a product of imperfection which dreams of perfection as a way to escape its own condition.

In some ways we can say that some remnant of a primordial starting unity – perhaps before the moment of universal expansion – lingers as some echo of the past and makes the mind imagine its return to it.
The road towards such harmony lies beyond consciousness, in the after death, where energy is returned to its original state of inertia and consciousness becomes unnecessary.

As things stand, the mind owes its awareness to chaos. It is s result of it and created as a method of coping with it.
Lucifer's Principle.

EmptyForceOfQi

Perfection is not subjective to the seeker. Things which can have a logical greatest expression are would have an objective perfection if such greatest expression was reached. Omnipresence, for instance, would be the logical greatest expression of presence, thus it would be objectively perfect.


but maybe i dont think omnipresance is perfect, because it cant make my breakfast the way i want it,



peace,

EmptyForceOfChi:

That isn't what would be considered objectively perfect.

but perfection means no flaws, if i want jerk chicken with rice and peas and its not made properly, thats not perfect,

perfection is concept, could you show me anythign in existance that is perfect,


peace,

Yes; existence itself. It is eternal, immutable, and infinite. See my "Prince James Argument for the Existence of God" thread.

perfection is subjective to the seeker.

The whole human experience is rather interesting. There is so much perception right here and now, but for some reason we seek for more. Simply being might be what we overlook in our search?

Good, that's perfect. :rolleyes:

-It's snowing and you helped to your friend with your snow truck. That's good, but your friend have a 3 neighbors, should I said you will have a 5 minutes of work to help them, but you didn't. Well it was good for a friend who cares about neighbors. This is the good of this world today and nothing else if you ask me.

Okay, but that this is what it is to you doesn't really negate the concepts of good or perfect in cases where they do not at all relate to you or your opinion. So stating that they don't exist is flatly incorrect. They do, at least to someone who isn't you.

Perhaps you might infer from your denial of them that there is a flaw in your own perspective.

My comment "good, that's perfect", was intended to directly demonstrate what I see as the flaw in your thinking.

I would suggest that perfection, as defined by the idea of stability, self-reliance and harmony, is detrimental to life in all its forms.

I think that's a strange perspective of perfection. Anthropomorphized even. Even so, I don't think that any of those are necessarily detrimental to life in the human form. If they were all there was, then I would agree. It seems to me however that human life thrives best under a mix of stability and diversity, help and self-reliance, harmony and discord. Life is somewhere in between.

Life is a consequence or a reaction against instability, flux and disharmony.
The mind is a product of imperfection which dreams of perfection as a way to escape its own condition.

This makes no sense because instability, flux and disharmony can only be defined within the context of life. As such, life itself cannot be a reaction against something it defines. IMO, this error nullifies the analysis that follows, though of course there is some nice poetic something about it, perhaps reflective of your character.

In some ways we can say that some remnant of a primordial starting unity – perhaps before the moment of universal expansion – lingers as some echo of the past and makes the mind imagine its return to it.

That's an interesting thought I suppose. From any certain perspective it is always right now. Thus now is in some sense, the moment the universe came to be and always will be. But to that any perspective, the moment the universe came to be is the moment ego epiphanized. The notion that the unity preceding the moment of universal expansion lingers and makes the mind return to it - however, shaky at best - as there are any number of minds, apparently including your own who to not at all need or desire this type of unity, which you have innappropriately labeled "detrimental to life in all its forms". Let me offer this: For anything we might want to call perfect in the sense you describe it, does not such a state require analysis to determine its status? Could we not redefine the criteria for stability, harmony or self-reliance in a way that fully supports or rejects any of the three, simply by changing perspective? If I look at a penny in my pocket, at what level of perspective do I call it stable? Macro, micro, sub-atomic? Do you think at the sub-atomic level stability would be as easily justified as at the macro-view? If you hand that penny to a random person and ask if it's stable, do you think every human on the planet would assume a perspective that justifies a positive answer? Meh. I just feel like bullshitting about this so I am.

The road towards such harmony lies beyond consciousness, in the after death, where energy is returned to its original state of inertia and consciousness becomes unnecessary.

Lol. I know you're just yanking on chains here, as you haven't the capacity for more, but I feel like responding to this stuff at the moment so color me hamsterish. Again I think applying notions such as harmony (only definable within the context of life) to that which necessarily lies beyond life is quite flawed, no?

As things stand, the mind owes its awareness to chaos.

I wish your avatar was available as a smiley to put in posts, as it seems appropriate here. I'll just leave this statement at: I find that a dubious statement. The mind doesn't own its awareness to anything. It simply is and at this moment, cannot be any other way.

It is s result of it and created as a method of coping with it.

Does not "created" imply intention? And why would a result of chaos be created to cope with chaos? Why would chaos need to be coped with and thus, create mind to do so? Again, the notion of chaos is only definable from mind, and as such cannot be rationally applied outside that context as you have.

Good and bad are subjective. Perfection prerequisites objectivity.

So if I find something to be perfect, you're telling me I'm wrong eh?

So if I find something to be perfect, you're telling me I'm wrong eh?


i think he ment, there subjective for each person, so your perfect is perfect, but his is also, but perfect isnt on a general level, it only exists to the individual, only personal,


peace,

But the idea of a "general level" or "objective source" on something that has to make a judgement about the state of something like "perfection"... is quite ludicrous. Dont' you think? There is no such thing as perfection without some judgement to make it so... unless well, I see perfection there... in a lack of judgement there is nothing but pure, unobserved function. How could it be other than perfect in that it must perform that function flawlessly?

All things are perfect. Something either fits the discription of what it is supposed to be or it doesn't. An imperfect circle is not a circle. When you define an object you decide what its purpose & attributes are. If it doesn't meet the criteria, it is not that thing, if it does, it is a perfect example. A gun that doesn't shoot is not a gun, a sword that doesn't cut is not a sword. A human is a certain lifeform with definable characteristics, you either meet the definition and are a human, or not. There are no degrees of humaness, such as perfect or imperfect.

But the idea of a "general level" or "objective source" on something that has to make a judgement about the state of something like "perfection"... is quite ludicrous. Dont' you think? There is no such thing as perfection without some judgement to make it so... unless well, I see perfection there... in a lack of judgement there is nothing but pure, unobserved function. How could it be other than perfect in that it must perform that function flawlessly?


agreed,

the only thing that possibly could be "perfect" is existance itself, but existance to some isnt "perfect" maybe perfect is just an ugly word, how about "perfectly efficient" existance is perfectly efficient because its exists fine,

perfect is subjective, words are subjective all together,


peace,

Good and bad are subjective. Perfection prerequisites objectivity.

Disagree. How does one perceive perfection unless as an observer?
Subjectivity is a prerequisite of perfection. It cannot exist otherwise - and by this definition it cannot exist in a human.

agreed,

the only thing that possibly could be "perfect" is existance itself, but existance to some isnt "perfect" maybe perfect is just an ugly word, how about "perfectly efficient" existance is perfectly efficient because its exists fine,

perfect is subjective, words are subjective all together,


peace,

Agreed. I see I have a problem making a direct point though. What I was trying to say that is that objecting to the notion of perfection because there is only a subjective basis for it is obviously invalid as there is no other means by which it could be done.

We could however, reach a consensus through predefined definitions and satisfaction thereof, as per my first post in this thread. For instance if I say "this thing should be an inch plus or minus a half inch per the scale on this ruler" and we both use that ruler to measure the thing and it's right about an inch.. we could say the thing perfectly satisfies our agreed upon criteria and is such, perfect in the context of the function we desired.

Like I said originally, I find the notion of perfection in general terms of "without flaw" to be generally useless except as an artistic tool for poetic notions and such.

Does the definition of perfection necessarily mean something exclusively good? Would something exclusively good be perfect?

by definition the perfect good has to be the perfect evil.

Without evil the meaning of good would vanish. This can only happen if they are one and the same. There is no duality.

The scriptures don’t say it because we would then not need scriptures:
There is no duality. The conflict is always not outside, but in the mind. Physics' "the observer determines the observation" mind, be it good or evil.

Good just cannot have any value or meaning unless it is the façade of evil.

So if you find the perfect good then just look behind its façade. The evil has to be there otherwise there would be no need for the façade. Look at the priests and their perversions. It is no coincidence. If they did not have the façade of “good” they would be all locked up long ago for their “evils.”

That is how good and evil have been working together ever since Adam found a woman that had to eat the apple so all the religions could then feast off their cesspool they call sins.

The perfect good has to be the perfect evil. Look at history. Jesus was the savior of mankind and yet he personified the devil himself to the “chosen race Jews” who considered non-Jews, goyim.
Hitler was another perfect example. To the post WW I starving Germans he was a savior and to the rest of the world he is the devil himself. Stalin was the same: while he was slaughtering the Russian masses by the millions these masses thought that he was the ultimate father-figure; why would they otherwise turn in their friends/family to the KGB to get slaughtered.

And then there is GWB: to Americans he is the word freedom and democracy .. and then to the majority of Arabs – to the majority of the world -- he is just a puppet for Isreal that makes Saddam Hussein a saint.

Take away the facade of the Nazi and anti-Semitism vanishes.
Only when you look behind the façade will you realize how Zionists create anti-Semitism by masquerading as Nazis…and how MOSAD /CIA brainwashed-hypnotized “Manchurian Candidates” make the best suicide-bombers and terrorists.
Just look behind the facade and the duality of good and its evil become a game of the cat chasing its tail, a Joke, the Supreme Comedy.

What are your (anyone) qualifications to recognize 'perfection'?

Either one 'invents the definition of 'perfection' according to one's own concepts', or one is 'perfect', and is therefore in a position to recognize it.
Is there a third option?

It is even perfect to not understand, as;

"Every kind of partial and transitory (apparent) dis-equilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole..." - Rene' Guinon

Agreed. I see I have a problem making a direct point though. What I was trying to say that is that objecting to the notion of perfection because there is only a subjective basis for it is obviously invalid as there is no other means by which it could be done.

We could however, reach a consensus through predefined definitions and satisfaction thereof, as per my first post in this thread. For instance if I say "this thing should be an inch plus or minus a half inch per the scale on this ruler" and we both use that ruler to measure the thing and it's right about an inch.. we could say the thing perfectly satisfies our agreed upon criteria and is such, perfect in the context of the function we desired.

Like I said originally, I find the notion of perfection in general terms of "without flaw" to be generally useless except as an artistic tool for poetic notions and such.


nicely put, i agree fully it is subjective to opinion, desires, mutualness also like you suggested,


peace

the Tao basicaly.

What are your (anyone) qualifications to recognize 'perfection'?

I'm perfectly qualified. I recognize it because I define it.

Either one 'invents the definition of 'perfection' according to one's own concepts', or one is 'perfect', and is therefore in a position to recognize it.
Is there a third option?

Not to follow the reasoning of the above, a different position could be "I think that which I do not sense must be perfect since it lacks the flaw(s) my perception might allow it". After all, a lack of perfection can only be established by the identification of flaw. It takes a POV to collapse undefined possiblity into "flaws". Flaw indicates a lack of agreeance with acceptance parameters, which external to a self are necessarily unrequired.

It is even perfect to not understand, as;

"Every kind of partial and transitory (apparent) dis-equilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole..." - Rene' Guinon

I understand the quote but don't understand your comment about not understanding. Impressive. lol.

Bad can be perfect too: the soul is not good but also perfectly 'invincible'.

I'm perfectly qualified. I recognize it because I define it.
Then you can be the poster boy for category 'A' (and, 'ha'..);
Either one 'invents the definition of 'perfection' according to one's own concepts'

Flaw indicates a lack of agreeance with acceptance parameters, which external to a self are necessarily unrequired.

I understand the quote but don't understand your comment about not understanding. Impressive. lol.
'Not understanding' and seeing apparent 'flaws' both qualify as 'apparent disequilibria' that contribute to...

Pragmatically, I like the quote as it is very 'inclusive'.
It seems to mean that we can all be 'correct', appearances be damned, and still be part of the 'greater equilibrium'.
Thank you.
*__-

Then you can be the poster boy for category 'A' (and, 'ha'..);
Either one 'invents the definition of 'perfection' according to one's own concepts'

A is all there is in this case, as there is no other means by which something can be defined.

'Not understanding' and seeing apparent 'flaws' both qualify as 'apparent disequilibria' that contribute to...

K. I getcha.

Pragmatically, I like the quote as it is very 'inclusive'.
It seems to mean that we can all be 'correct', appearances be damned, and still be part of the 'greater equilibrium'.
Thank you.
*__-

But of course that we can all be "correct" doesn't mean that such correctness won't clash when butted up against one another.

A is all there is in this case, as there is no other means by which something can be defined.
I would tend to disagree, many, if not most, are happy to imbibe the definitions/experiences/teachings of 'others' as their own. At first, thats understandable, in children. Unfortunately, many live their whole lives within the 'definitions' of 'others'.

But of course that we can all be "correct" doesn't mean that such correctness won't clash when butted up against one another.
Absolutely!! There is the 'fun', the 'challenge', there is the 'pain' necessary for 'personal growth'. That is the nature of 'boot camp'! All that we can learn! From dealing with idiots and morons, we learn 'compassion'. Dealing with an opposing intelligent perspective we learn creative thought, synthesis, communication..

"The Balance of Nature is a harmony of contained conflicts!"
Thats what makes the movie so interesting!!! *__-

I would tend to disagree, many, if not most, are happy to imbibe the definitions/experiences/teachings of 'others' as their own. At first, thats understandable, in children. Unfortunately, many live their whole lives within the 'definitions' of 'others'.

Sure, but when they accept that teaching or definition, it becomes their own - as it is part of their mind. Whether they choose to acknowledge or question it is irrelevant to the point of whose perception is defining it now.

Ok Wes,
sad but true,
I guess.
*__-