the ultimate perfection

[_Z_]

the ultimate perfection

going back to plato’s notion of forms [as perhaps metaphoric] i would like to hopefully add a new twist or a fresh perspective so we can we find perfection amongst things and then an ultimate perfection...
we live in a world that is constantly changing in a way that seams fluid, yet within this change can we say that perfection is arrived at ~ indeed is it what existence strives for, the reason for all things! if we break down this flux of change there are certain ideas to be noted...

‘truths of the transformative are no truer than that of the complete or formed’ by this i mean that any set of values, principles or laws that we attribute to the transforming nature of existence, are no truer than what we consider for the completed form or end of task entity. if we look at a cup, it is referred to as a holistic object, we would say that there is no such thing as ‘cup’ only that there is a flux which at some point in the transformative process appears to be what we call a ‘cup’. what though if we say that a cup is a thing in and of itself, is this any less true than the vague reference to it as part of a changing process?

we could instead site e.g. an atom as a perfect object, indeed any combination in the periodic table can be so. perhaps unstable compounds are not so perfect though, nevertheless an atom is little different to a cup as it can be changed to yet is its own entity.

there is another side to this in philosophy, where it is asked; if we build a ship then continually replace its parts until all the new parts have been replaced, it is still the same ship? it would look the same and be the same to all intense purposes, yet every part of it would have changed. we may see ourselves much in the same light, every cell in our bodies change over time, do we remain the same person?

answer; when we build the ship it is to a blueprint a desired outcome is achieved in the building of it. once it is the ship as desired, it makes no difference if all the parts are changed as we still have the same entity!
let us look at this problem on another level i.e. in terms of truths. we will begin to explore the idea of an ultimate perfection as the blueprint and desire of existence...

as an anarchist i like this one so i’ll restate it...

if we say; ‘genius is the result of the entire product of man’.
then can we take this to a more universal level and say; ‘perfection is the result of all imperfections’ & ‘a series of random imperfections will always give rise to a state of perfection’.

thence; ‘eternity is the result of all perfections’.

so is ‘god’ all perfection? well, we can have all examples of perfection, but they cannot be attributed to a single definitive entity e.g. you cannot have a perfect circle and a perfect square as part of the same perfection, they must be their own distinct forms of perfection. we may only have a place where they all reside at least in idea. the problem then arises that there can be no change as all things must remain as they are. however we may have perfection interacting with perfection without changing it. in fact back down here on earth we only have occasional imperfection in comparison to perfections made.

how can we call a thing perfect.
even if we conclude that the blue print for the ship is itself an imperfect thing, the execution of the construction [even if that process itself is imperfect] results in the perfect example of what is desired in the blueprint.
universal evolution is then a process of finding perfections, the blueprint is in the potentiality for a given entity.

so what can be the result of all perfections ~ what is ultimately achieved?
here we enter the idea that there are different levels of perfection. we can say that all through evolution we arrive at different examples like a mouse is a perfect mouse, a human is a perfect human. is an ape though an imperfect human? yes and no, it is a perfection but it is not as perfect as the next generation of forms along its evolutionary line.

in human terms we may not yet have reached ‘the perfect version’ of human, it may or may not be so that we could for example, make perfect inventions, perfect philosophies and have a complete and perfect scientific grande theory of everything, indeed we may stop growing beards ~ so was plato imperfect .

if we now take the collected works of the universe, then multiply that by infinity ~ so that somewhere along the line we have to concede that eventually the all-perfect thing is reached, what could that all-perfect entity be?

note the answer may be exactly the same as if we ask ‘must all things come to an end’, what would that state be? so we have the positive and negative example, both of which amounts to the same thing?
so what then is the ultimate perfection, as a concept or perhaps a reality.
my own conclusion:

1. the ultimate perfection is ‘absolute simplicity’.

2. god as ultimate perfection. truth is ‘there’ all the time, it is only when we try to label it that we falsify it. this is why what is true about god is true about absolute simplicity. it doesn’t mean that we are taking anything away from ‘god’, in fact it is that we are giving more to him, even though it sounds empty. this is because anything we add to purity makes it lesser/impure, anything we add to ultimate truth makes it false, and anything we add to the ultimate perfection makes it imperfect!

is god then the ultimate perfection? or is it infinity, nirvana or something else entirely, the universal perhaps or the whole [whatever that is]?

[Paladin]

Hi Z,
To begin with, is the term "ultimate perfection" redundant?

[_Z_]

hi paladin

To begin with, is the term "ultimate perfection" redundant?

gotta start somewhere.

hmm is it though?

[Paladin]

Well, don't want to nit pick, but if your premise is that perfection is the destination and reason of all things it would follow that perfection and ultimate would of necessity be the same thing, nicht wahr?

[_Z_]

if your premise is that perfection is the destination and reason of all things it would follow that perfection and ultimate would of necessity be the same thing

the only problem i see is semantics. these are simply two terms that pertain to the one reality, we could add ‘the whole’ or the entire perhaps.

the premise is that things try to be perfect examples of their given form, where for example a lion is a perfect lion. this doesn’t necessarily mean that a given lion is perfect to the detriment of all other lions, we can take words and meaning to literally. we are saying that there is the archetype ‘lion’ then that lions belong to that form of perfection ~ they follow the blueprint.

[Paladin]

Ok, sure, don't want to digress from the main point, just seemed a bit curious. As for your premise, what is meant by "things try to be perfect examples of their given form" And further, do you differentiate like Plato did between form and Form?

Not trying to sharpshoot here just trying to understand your narrative in the OP

[_Z_]

i don’t think you were digressing ~ you made an essential and valid point.

As for your premise, what is meant by "things try to be perfect examples of their given form"

if you have a set of archetypes then as things evolve they kinda drop into one box or another [where a box is the conceptualisation of an archetype]. in simple forms first comes 1 then 2, all things that are singular belong to the realm of one ~ such as integers, individual holistic objects and anything we may class as singular. then all things that are polarised, balanced or doubled in some way belong to ‘2’.

do you differentiate like Plato did between form and Form?

long time since i read, how can one differentiate between two things that are the same i.e. form and Form ~ expand the inferred difference in meaning please. i would say that plato’s forms are only a reference, i could use the term ‘shape’ or blueprint, notion or idea of a thing.

[Paladin]

Here I'm using the term "form" to represent the thing in itself (without getting into Kant) and Form to identify the perfect idea of that thing which according to Plato exists on another plane altogether. In this way I hope to stave off any confusion as the thread progresses.

You have brought up a number of interesting ideas around his (Plato's) theory of Forms not the least of which appears to be a vague reference to holons. Could you expand on that a bit?

[_Z_]

Here I’m using the term "form" to represent the thing in itself (without getting into Kant) and Form to identify the perfect idea of that thing which according to Plato exists on another plane altogether. In this way I hope to stave off any confusion as the thread progresses.

sure, no problems. so we have ‘X= it’ the thing being referred to ~ the actual thing itself, and y = ‘it’ the description thereof. then we have the archetype or perfect example of the thing. the latter to me must primarily be considered as a blueprint [perhaps infinite potential], i then went on to explore the idea of there being an eternity created as things become manifest. in other words; you sculpt a vase from clay [in this world], its Form then exists in eternity, except eternity being what it is, means that the Form existed before you made the vase.

i see problems with this as to where we distinguish between the fully formed vase and the not quite made version. why would only the fully formed vase be replicated in eternity [not to mention means etc]. my only answer is that all unformed things may be considered as a whole, that you have clay in your hands and it is being re-shaped as your hands manipulate it and occasionally it takes on a form of some distinction e.g. a vase, it follows that only distinctions count [as the rest are fluid].

You have brought up a number of interesting ideas around his (Plato’s) theory of Forms not the least of which appears to be a vague reference to holons. Could you expand on that a bit?

thanks i certainly hope so. forgive me but i cannot remember what ‘holons’ are either. i wasnt trying to replicate plato’s dialogue and or perception of the world, but to build of the basic idea as some kind of basis ~ perhaps i didn’t need to?

be glad to expand ~ perhaps we should proceed using more general terms. or if you explain what you mean as you go. it is always good to be inclusive imho [that all who read may understand].

[Paladin]

Sure, Holons are the whole within the whole. Parts of things that are complete within themselves but make up other things when put together.
Molecules are complete within themselves as you mention, they in turn are put together to make up something else, lets say a human heart cell. You can see where I'm going with this...
The only thing we cannot reduce ( and even this is questionable due to other theories, but for the sake of argument we proceed with this idea) are atoms.

A brief explanation is given here: Holon (philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[_Z_]

i see, kinda obvious wholeons .

The only thing we cannot reduce are atoms.

ultimately i would expect they can be ~ i thought a higgs boson particle was the theoretical heaviest of which all others are composed. anyways, at the first moments of the big bang i doubt if anything had structure liken an atom. one would presume that there was an original state where the singularity was indeed singular - as opposed to having other states within it.
for me there are three eternals or absolute hmm holons if you like then. infinity, the infinitesimal and singularity. of course these three are within a greater universal, so what is the whole that composes all? this for me would be without description ~ or absolute simplicity.

[Paladin]

So then the drama of becoming happens within this field of absolute simplicity? That makes sense. I've always thought that ( without being reductionist) that things like religion or religious notions are in a sense divisive since there really isn't a dichotomy in reality except we place it there. There can only be that which is, or your "Absolute Simplicity" and all things are part of that and have movement and being as holons.
Perhaps the mystics who have used religious language to express that which is saw quite clearly and those who come after and hear those words reduce it all to dogma. I think Maslow commented on this in his work The Farther Reaches of Human Nature

[_Z_]

i agree, everything from the tao to nirvana and god belong to something that is real or nothing at all. it all falls apart in our explanations, i am sure most mystics had the best of intentions but people tend to take it all literally.

the way i am visualising absolute simplicity is like polarities, you take a positive and a negative, put them together and get neutral. so in a yin yang sense all opposites can be brought together in this way within the ultimate whole. perhaps the beginning was exactly the inverse of that?

the strange thing for me is that the whole we arrived at there, remains! ~ as i see it.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by _Z_

the strange thing for me is that the whole we arrived at there, remains! ~ as i see it.

So then the universe isn't about to disintegrate due to entropy?

I'm still intrigued by the pure land idea, that somehow a plane of reality exists where Forms are real, more real than what is mimicked here.
Your a priori cup got me thinking along those lines.

[_Z_]

So then the universe isn’t about to disintegrate due to entropy?

lols no,i don’t think so. entropy may have something to do with it, but science doesn’t consider reality to be a whole entity, and that the end will be more of a merging than of destruction. science sees e.g. the conservation of energy, where you destroy one energy and it is replaced by another [hence energy is seen as indestructible], or it sees momentum and gravity as unexplainable energies belonging to bodies. what it doesn’t see is that there is one thing being acted upon!

I’m still intrigued by the pure land idea, that somehow a plane of reality exists where Forms are real, more real than what is mimicked here.
Your a priori cup got me thinking along those lines.

yes it is intriguing , i am thinking along the lines of 'zero energy entities'. in a sense that is what we truly are, the physical body is only a medium for communicating information. what is actually real about us is what we are, not what vehicle we are occupying. so if eternity is composed of such zero energy entities and the ultimate nature is a zero energy entity from whence energy itself derives, then i am quite happy to consider it the greater entity of reality even though it has zero physical value .