The Imperfection of Perfection?

What if perfection ended when Bo Derek make the movie "10"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Quack:

I would disagree here. On no level is perfection subjective, nor in the three categories of perfection. Allow me to explain:

Perfection of Utility: To be perfect it must fit the job (objective).
Perfection of Definition: To be perfect it must fullfill the definition fully (objective).
Absolute Perfection: To be perfect it must be the logical greatest expression (objective)

There is nothing greater in existence beyond it, it is the ultimate expression of existence. It represents total, absolute, necessary existence. It is the ultiamte expression of all finite existence.

What would be perfectly changing?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you! It took a while, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yaba Daba :m:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

why....infinity or course!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Infinity changing eternally, what more of infinity do you want?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

please note two infinite and absolute concepts, infinity and eternity.

[please note this is not an overly serious post]

sorry I didn't see this thread until a few hours ago...
I still stand by the fact that perfection is only a value or quality. Hence it is not a word used in science and only used in questions of philosophy.

If I had a self evolving, self energised, self perpetuating, self correcting, self changing fully automatic system would that be considered more perfect that something that is in stasis and unchanging?

 

Quantum Quack:

Small aside- what is this intrigue with Bo Derek?
There’s a million plus black men with cornbraids who’d look just liker her without all the color.

Is it the braids? The boobs, the eyes, the what? They’re all average.

Same with Cheryl Tiegs and Farrah Fawcett, I don’t get it. You ancients from the 70’s have NO taste in women.

Wesmorris:

A fortunate writer who’s unfortunately Mormon:
http://www.hatrack.com/osc/about.shtml

Sing it

If you woke up and forgot you chekced into a hotel, the whole room would be an incomprehensible absurdity until you remembered that you had checked into a hotel and are in fact not at home.
Everything suddenly falls into place and you can to the best of your abilites, function again. “You gotta pick the frame to do any calculations.”

If you and I were dangling in space, your claim to falling up is as as valid as mine of both of us standing still.
If you and I were dangling in a philosophical vaccum, your claim to being a conscious self would be as valid as mine to both of us being an unconscious collective.

How could we even speak?
If you truly believed reality to be such a meaningless vaccum and “self’ a delusion, then only a philosophical hypocrite would be able to speak to another human being about anything.

Lile this cancerous mole Quantum Quack.

Notice the whole world speaks in terms of “I” - I belive this, I say this to you and you say this back to me I’m aware of my typing this down for the Wesmorris and screw him if he does not believe me.
All in all, this communication is impossible if I truly believe self is no valid reference at all.
But when I do, evertying falls into place and I can to the best of my ablilites, function. “You gotta pick a frame to do any calculations.”

This is why nihilistic philosophies, however alluring, are sheer irony.

Nope.

You can shut em up, like, totally quickly, like, if you do them like drugs and say NO:

-Atlas Shrugged

In other words, fuck The Trap.
And fuck Jim Jones.
And fuck Rand for that matter, she has some good points but all in all.....weak philosophy.

 

Truthseeker:

Claim consistency.

Since you did not, Tamponia and Sadissio did their best to muddle your sanity but you did not play well.
Oh well.


(you realize that between a roach or a sand wasp your claim is that humans are perfect in comparison? Think about it)

 

Gendanken:

.


Good to see you have resurfaced on the forum...and as usual your sense of humour is pure delight.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To be perfectly honest black men in braids are no competition to Dudley. Bo Derek??? Who ?

Ahh!! you mean that stunning slender longhaired sexually liberated young thing....hmmmm...nope...sorry Dudley wins hands down.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Btw
cancerous Mole.....comment.....hmmmm...I am of the star sign Cancer and as a kid I used to love diigging holes...especially the ones I couldn't get out of......until someone said "dig up ....dig up"
[ Joke C/o ...The Simpsons]

 

That Rand bitch should have met me.
I'd demonstrate to her how she permitted to bleed from being stabbed with a dirty fork in her eye, while she also permitted to being held down by three angry men.

 

Water:

She was refering to the seduction of irrational mystics, not of assaulters.

 

The lines between the two are blurry.

 

I think this discussion offers strong evidence that perfection should be considered a subjective concept. It's just so darn contextual.

 

Water:

Are they?

Onefinity:

Since when does contextual equate to subjective?

 

Considering they can have the same effects: yes.

This is the best consideration I have heard in a long time!

 

Subjects, human beings who make judgments, are always doing so in particular contexts. Generalizing those judgments beyond particular contexts is something that the subject(s) can do in an authentic way when it makes sense for them across contexts that they are in. But generalizing those judgments without the subject present - by attempting to turn the judgment into "objective knowledge" that can be transferred to subject(s) who are not in the particular contexts - is where the judgment loses its roots.

It is then that we can pretend have an "objective" standard of perfection (i.e., a standard in which we no longer require ourselves to re-address the question of "what makes this perfect?"), in order to get through the moment. For example, when a manufacturer decides that an error of .0005% is "perfect."

Put another way, perfection is always an idea that is subjectively and intersubjectively negotiated by persons or groups of persons situated in contexts that frame their subjectivity. They may call their agreed-upon standard "objective," and that is legitimate because it has indeed been made into an "object" of knowledge, ostensibly apart from them. But it is not actually apart from them.

They key thing that I hope you will learn is that the notion of objectivity is precisely this: the establishment of subject-object relations for functional epistemological purposes of working "in the world." However, it must always be kept in mind that the object is part-and-parcel of the subject, for no subject can be defined that is not bounded and given form by relationships with the world, and it is relationships that all forms are made of.

 

Water:

One might assault the body, but the other assaults something far worse: The mind.

Onefinity:

Whilst this seems so, perhaps you might offer a few examples to flesh it out completely?

But cannot we offer a truly objective, rooted in logic, definition of things? And offer means whereby we can judge something perfect even when it is not a logical necessity for it to be so?

So you would claim even logic is not worth giving objective standard?

But does this destroy the possibility to come to a true standard of truth?

 

Truth is not a thing. It is an experience. It is like the wind: it only comes into being when there is movement. Where there is no searching for truth, there is no truth. When the truth is found and settled upon as a "standard," and the search has ended, then it does not exist. This is where you are using the concept of truth poorly, when you seem to be referring to "reality" instead. (Of course, you know that I also feel that reality is not a thing, but an experience, but that's a side argument

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Onefinity:

So you claim there is no true truth?

 

I claim that there is no one search.

I am disappointed that you are attempting to use a rhetorical argument. If I were to say "Yes, there is no true truth," then you would proceed into a word-based, logic-based, debate-style forensic argument that ignores and seeks to deny the authenticity and validity of the core idea that I am presenting. You are intelligent enough to understand, from my previous post, that I utilize a different definition of truth than the typical. It is based on truth as an experience, not a thing or condition that is there in the absence of human pursuit.

Now, in order to engage me in an inquiry as to the usefulness of this way of approaching the concept of "truth," you need to understand what I mean by it, which also means that you must intersubjectively acknowledge (i.e., form a common, transient bond of shared meaning and trust with me) that it has authenticity and validity. I grant the conventional definition and discussion of the concept of truth - the one that you represent - authenticity and validity, and I understand it because it is a commonly accepted part of our culture. I also seek to recognize its limitations and transcend it.

 

Onefinity:

I actually wasn't attempting that, although it isn't really a rheotorical trick, but more like a demonstration of a fallacy. My question wasn't a Socratic lead, but an actual inquiry.

I am willing to give validity to your definition on the basis of it being a point of view, but yes, let's see which concept of truth seems to be best.

Now, you say that truth is only truth when searched for? But can we not speak of the truth being discovered, not created, in the search? Truth can be defined as "that which corresponds with reality", and if we look towards reality, think over it, will not we discover the truth of its being?

 

Perfection is relative of course.

Perfection is exact criteria made real.