the ultimate perfection

[Paladin]

[quote=_Z_;140207]
i have very little formal training in these fields, i dropped out of collage etc etc . quote]

You're lucky, I had to learn my philosophy on the street




[quote=_Z_;14027] a perfect circle is more perfect than a set of points adding up to a perfect circle mathematically or otherwise. so the eternal version is perfection and even maths cannot match it.
quote]

This reminds me of the Zen Enso the hand brushed circle showing a definite and and beginning but trancending both

[_Z_]

You’re lucky, I had to learn my philosophy on the street

yes that is what i mean, at collage [the little i done] i learned engineering ~ it helps though, hence the blueprint.

This reminds me of the Zen Enso the hand brushed circle showing a definite end and beginning but trancending both

yes the tao of the circle is already drawn, the tao of the path of drawing the circle is the art of tao.
or, once drawn there are no ends etc etc.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by _Z_

Your spirit of enquiry hasn't been damped any, and your knowledge of philosphy make me think you are a life long student.

See? Perfect example!

[_Z_]

i was thinking that you were a life long student plaladin, you can remember plato after all. to be honest i only have a copy of the republic, most i know is from general philosophical literature. i prefer socrates and pythagoras anyhow ~ but don’t ask me to quote them either, my memory sufferes a lot of static at my age lols.

[_Z_]

an important aspect of this i forgot to mention is that nothing is a fraction! if you cut a piece of paper in half then you don’t have two halves you have two wholes. everything then is actually whole no matter how much we divide it!

so the principle would go; ‘perfection always remains, regardless of change’.

[greymare]

but if the halves arent halves but are really wholes...... are the whole of all the wholes just parts of a bigger whole?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by _Z_

an important aspect of this i forgot to mention is that nothing is a fraction! if you cut a piece of paper in half then you don’t have two halves you have two wholes. everything then is actually whole no matter how much we divide it!

so the principle would go; ‘perfection always remains, regardless of change’.

Absolutely Z, like cutting silence in half, there is simply more silence

[_Z_]

greymare hi

but if the halves arent halves but are really wholes...... are the whole of all the wholes just parts of a bigger whole?

it would seam that you just get varying degrees of wholes ~ simply because you cannot truly have real fractions. i can see the inferred paradox though, where two wholes or more could be seen as parts of a greater whole. wholes that are within greater wholes are not fractions though, you still don’t ever get half of something.

paladin

Absolutely Z, like cutting silence in half, there is simply more silence

indeed, same goes for nothingness or emptiness as it does for wholeness [strangely]. try to divide and you just get more of the same.
this is why we don’t get the universe beginning by being a part of infinity [is impossible], you can only have the three eternals; infinity, infinitesimal, quantum. they all can only be whole.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Is half an apple a whole apple? It's a whole, but it's not a whole apple. Is there a discernible difference between whole and half volume? Certainly. Gotta stick with the original frame of reference. Is Shroedinger's cat a real cat? No, it's an analogy. Real cats are either dead or alive, and nothing in between. We can't start talking about something at one level of a hierarchy, transfer it by analogy to a lower level, and then transfer the conclusions back to the higher level. Can't do that.

Chris

[Paladin]

Sorry Chris but I didn't think we were reducing this down to the conventional

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Sorry Chris but I didn't think we were reducing this down to the conventional

Oh, OK. But aren't we using conventional terms to describe something conceptual, and then pretending that the purely conceptual thing precedents the conventional? That was kinda my problem with the whole "perfection" thing from the start.

Chris

[Paladin]

Well, we started out with Plato, and the idea of Forms and forms, so I thought we were still in the realm of metaphor

[China Cat Sunflower]

No, no. I do get it. Sometimes I can't turn this part of my brain off. Trees falling in forests, sound of one hand clapping kinda thing.

Chris

[Paladin]

Ironically the conventional seems abstract and what was once abstract seems more real.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well...ultimately there is no such thing as thing, but I'm stuck using the language of things to describe no-thing, and I can't get outside of that.

Chris