Perfection, or the lack thereof.

[UsuallyPresent]

@MiaBabe23 and I started a conversation in another thread based on our takes on perfection. I hesitate to put words in her mouth, but it appears to me that she takes an optimistic point of view. Me, I'm a wee bit of a curmudgeon and pessimist.

This started with my statement, "Dreams, them cruel bastiches, drive us ever onwards, striving to reach internally-inconsistent perfection."

Mia replied - (Internally inconsistent? Because it would cease to be perfect once achieved?)

Me - (In part, if you could get there - things can always be more perfect, much like they can always be worse. It's like accelerating to the speed of light - you can't quiiiiiiite ever get there without cheating)

Mia - (That’s an interesting one; but what would make it unreachable? Awareness of it?)

Me - (Awareness of anything that could make it better would break it, if you believe awareness affects the definition of 'perfection,' or the real or even potential existence of a better state would - if you're more into definitions which don't require awareness)

Mia - (But being unaware would surely inevitably mean imperfection remains. Why couldn’t that awareness lead to perfecting the imperfections? Like a perfect circle, for example)

Me - (Circles are perfect within the limits of our descriptions, aka not truly perfect. Even the platonic ideal of a circle isn't guaranteed to be perfect, only the best that Plato could imagine casting shadows on the wall of the cave. And complete perfection over all possible options is a non-starter in and of itself - for every door you open, every choice you make, one or more other door or choice becomes barred to you. Perfection in a specified goal is limited in part by the awareness of the goal, and of the reality one is within, possibly among other things)

Mia - (But our knowledge, and indeed technology, mean we can move beyond Plato’s forms in how we understand possible perfection. Algebra being one example. And for people - why assume all those choices will be wrong? Chance would mean that someone somewhere will have made all optimal choices - are they then perfect? Is that determined through moral intent, good judgment or outcomes?)"

So, now you're caught up!

 

[MiaBabe23]

I think it’s a good idea to continue it here, yes!

But it awaits your response lol…

 

[UsuallyPresent]

We can - have! - moved beyond the classical philosphers' ideas, and have developed both theoretic and practical proofs that we're more right than wrong - how else can we communicate online except via technology that handles atomic level imprecision, quantum-scale phenomena, and thermal, sonic, and other contamination in practical ways?

That being said, I can't see a way where we can get to or beyond the speed of light no matter how long we push and push and push towards it. The harder we push, the stronger the accelleration, the greater the counterforces we have to deal with.

And that's the analogy I (at least tried to!) set earlier - perfection as the speed of light. We can approach it, but we can't quite ever get there.

On top of that, you've added in the idea of 'perfect perfection' - perfection beyond limitation or scope. To my point of view, the narrower the focus or scope we attempt to 'perfect' or approach perfection within, the easier the problem (not that it's soluable - just that it's easier).

 

[UsuallyPresent]

I think it’s a good idea to continue it here, yes!

But it awaits your response lol…

Sorry - lotta typing there!

 

[MiaBabe23]

Sorry - lotta typing there!

That’s okay, I’ll just tear down one of your points at a time

 

[MiaBabe23]

We can - have! - moved beyond the classical philosphers' ideas, and have developed both theoretic and practical proofs that we're more right than wrong - how else can we communicate online except via technology that handles atomic level imprecision, quantum-scale phenomena, and thermal, sonic, and other contamination in practical ways?

That being said, I can't see a way where we can get to or beyond the speed of light no matter how long we push and push and push towards it. The harder we push, the stronger the accelleration, the greater the counterforces we have to deal with.

And that's the analogy I (at least tried to!) set earlier - perfection as the speed of light. We can approach it, but we can't quite ever get there.

On top of that, you've added in the idea of 'perfect perfection' - perfection beyond limitation or scope. To my point of view, the narrower the focus or scope we attempt to 'perfect' or approach perfection within, the easier the problem (not that it's soluable - just that it's easier).

So the speed of light analogy is appealing because it seems instinctual, but in reality, it’s a matter of scientific fact - we can’t do that. Perhaps one day we will be able to, but currently, no
There’s no physical restraint*, however, on achieving perfection. Perhaps the first thing needed here is basic agreement on definitions - how are you defining perfection?

*Those preferring a discussion of physical restraint, give a wave

 

[UsuallyPresent]

That’s okay, I’ll just tear down one of your points at a time

Actually looking forward to it!

 

[UsuallyPresent]

-snip-

Perhaps the first thing needed here is basic agreement on definitions - how are you defining perfection?

Fair.

Wikipedia, that font of all online wisdom, gives us a definition of "a state, variously, of completeness, flawlessness, or supreme excellence."

In this context, 'completeness' is probably a non-starter, as completeness would include neutral and negative aspects of a goal - winning, playing, and losing, all jumbled together. Skip.

'Flawlessness' is closer if we take 'flaws' as aspects of the goal which do not add to the positive. The playing or losing the game, from the prior example.

'Supreme excellence' is very similar to flawlessness with that interpretation of 'flaw'.

So, the state derived of all related aspects which reach some specified goal.

How's that work for you?

 

[MiaBabe23]

Lol Wikipedia?! But not an unreasonable definition lol
So flawlessness and supreme excellence? I suppose since we’re talking about someone achieving perfection, it needs both

So does that have to apply to everything inside as well as actions? Must every thought be flawless and excellent?

 

[MiaBabe23]

Lol is there a nudity element to your definition of perfection?

 

[UsuallyPresent]

I mentioned 'aspects' for a reason there. Parts make up at least some of the whole, even if the whole is more than the sum of its parts. So aspects - parts - of a goal all add to or detract from its perfection. If there are some which are neutral or detracting from the goal, by the aforementioned definition, it'd not be perfect. Thus everything leading to the goal must be a gain for it to have a chance at being perfection.

Problems start cropping up immediately here.

It is possible to have something be of benefit, but not the peak or optimal benefit - not the 'supreme excellence' - derived from that aspect of the goal.

It's also quite possible to have the penultimate benefit available from one aspect of a goal be a detriment to one or more other aspects of the same goal. The desire for long-term pleasure implies your long-term existence and thus food, water, shelter and all those other obnoxious requirements are part of 'perfection.'

 

[UsuallyPresent]

Lol is there a nudity element to your definition of perfection?

LOL - Nah, just having fun in the other thread.

 

[MiaBabe23]

I mentioned 'aspects' for a reason there. Parts make up at least some of the whole, even if the whole is more than the sum of its parts. So aspects - parts - of a goal all add to or detract from its perfection. If there are some which are neutral or detracting from the goal, by the aforementioned definition, it'd not be perfect. Thus everything leading to the goal must be a gain for it to have a chance at being perfection.

Problems start cropping up immediately here.

It is possible to have something be of benefit, but not the peak or optimal benefit - not the 'supreme excellence' - derived from that aspect of the goal.

It's also quite possible to have the penultimate benefit available from one aspect of a goal be a detriment to one or more other aspects of the same goal. The desire for long-term pleasure implies your long-term existence and thus food, water, shelter and all those other obnoxious requirements are part of 'perfection.'

Lol I shouldn’t be trying to answer this with a semi-functioning brain, but will try…
So the idea that an imperfect part would render someone or something imperfect isn’t necessarily true. An imperfect seal may make for a perfect hole. For the person, it comes back to subjective standards; someone might consider abstinence vital to perfection, but is it it? How can we be sure? What if it leads to other imperfections?
And essential needs aren’t inherent flaws, surely - are you taking an original sin perspective? Is the perfect forest flawed because it needs rain? Isn’t symbiosis a strength?

 

[Neanderthal247]

No such thing as perfection, but in the greatest moments, something or someone can feel perfect to you.

 

[MiaBabe23]

No such thing as perfection, but in the greatest moments, something or someone can feel perfect to you.

Why do you think there isn’t?

 

[Neanderthal247]

Why do you think there isn’t?

Because at moments when blinded by love, I don't see any flaws, I'm enamored by your best qualities. Once the extreme emotion begin to taper, you start noticing more flaws, still in love though.

 

[UsuallyPresent]

Lol I shouldn’t be trying to answer this with a semi-functioning brain, but will try…

Agreed, and also appreciated. Look forward to future posts, too!

So the idea that an imperfect part would render someone or something imperfect isn’t necessarily true. An imperfect seal may make for a perfect hole.

Remember we’re talking perfection for a goal. If the goal is sealing, a hole of any degree of perfection shatters the perfection of the seal. Similarly, a hole in a seal isn’t perfect - the seal still exists and restricts the flow.

For the person, it comes back to subjective standards; someone might consider abstinence vital to perfection, but is it it? How can we be sure? What if it leads to other imperfections?

I’ve been (trying to) dodge the whole subjective/objective divide, as it takes and slathers on another whole thick layer of multiple definitions. Instead I’ve been trying to keep focused on reaching some goal, be it subjective or objective or even frankly delusional - although admittedly reaching the latter category’s gonna be a whole lot more difficult!

And essential needs aren’t inherent flaws, surely - are you taking an original sin perspective? Is the perfect forest flawed because it needs rain? Isn’t symbiosis a strength?

If your goal is, say, watching the next holiday parade, and you’ve slept horribly of late, wouldn’t your essential need for sleep be a detriment in attempting to achieve your stated goal? And per prior definition, wouldn’t that break perfection?

NOT talking about original sin, mind!

 

[MiaBabe23]

Because at moments when blinded by love, I don't see any flaws, I'm enamored by your best qualities. Once the extreme emotion begin to taper, you start noticing more flaws, still in love though.

Do you think love can be perfect?

 

[Neanderthal247]

Do you think love can be perfect?

No, but it's subjective to a person's beliefs. Love is an emotion, it can be interpreted by individual experiences and beliefs.


We fall in love with people who are bad for us, people love us and exhibit toxic behavior, due to lack of control. We love things that are bad for us, the sensation of pleasure corrupts us. Loving someone is in a healthy manner takes hard work, we have to develop emotional skills we don't normally have, in order to show her the love she needs. We have to make sacrifices for the ones we love, if we do not have the mental capacity to sacrifice, then we are not equipped to love someone the right way. All these skills must be learned.


No matter how much you love someone, you will get on each other's nerves and get tired of their bs. Are we just going to run away or work on it, like you promised during marriage ? All of this takes hard work, empathy and to become introspective, you have to hone in on the skills to become emotional intelligence, in order to love a person correctly. This all takes hard work, that never ends and is a constant battle within.

 

[UsuallyPresent]

Do you think love can be perfect?

The only perfection I expect is the perfect inability to find perfection... Which is a thought that hurts my head every time it tapdances in my cranium even all these decades after I first encountered it!

 

[UsuallyPresent]

No, but it's subjective to a person's beliefs. Love is an emotion, it can be interpreted by individual experiences and beliefs.


We fall in love with people who are bad for us, people love us and exhibit toxic behavior, due to lack of control. We love things that are bad for us, the sensation of pleasure corrupts us. Loving someone is in a healthy manner takes hard work, we have to develop emotional skills we don't normally have, in order to show her the love she needs. We have to make sacrifices for the ones we love, if we do not have the mental capacity to sacrifice, then we are not equipped to love someone the right way. All these skills must be learned.


No matter how much you love someone, you will get on each other's nerves and get tired of their bs. Are we just going to run away or work on it, like you promised during marriage ? All of this takes hard work, empathy and to become introspective, you have to hone in on the skills to become emotional intelligence, in order to love a person correctly. This all takes hard work, that never ends and is a constant battle within.

I think that I agree with Neanderthal's points, and (per the prior definition) that would impute that at least in the vast majority of cases love isn't perfect.

Not saying it can't be a grand, wonderful, awesome experience - it clearly can! - it's just 'perfection' is that further step, ever out of reach.

 

[MiaBabe23]

No, but it's subjective to a person's beliefs. Love is an emotion, it can be interpreted by individual experiences and beliefs.


We fall in love with people who are bad for us, people love us and exhibit toxic behavior, due to lack of control. We love things that are bad for us, the sensation of pleasure corrupts us. Loving someone is in a healthy manner takes hard work, we have to develop emotional skills we don't normally have, in order to show her the love she needs. We have to make sacrifices for the ones we love, if we do not have the mental capacity to sacrifice, then we are not equipped to love someone the right way. All these skills must be learned.


No matter how much you love someone, you will get on each other's nerves and get tired of their bs. Are we just going to run away or work on it, like you promised during marriage ? All of this takes hard work, empathy and to become introspective, you have to hone in on the skills to become emotional intelligence, in order to love a person correctly. This all takes hard work, that never ends and is a constant battle within.

Well I’m not married, so not running away from anything. And definitely not as cynical as your words imply lol

 

[MiaBabe23]

I think that I agree with Neanderthal's points, and (per the prior definition) that would impute that at least in the vast majority of cases love isn't perfect.

Not saying it can't be a grand, wonderful, awesome experience - it clearly can! - it's just 'perfection' is that further step, ever out of reach.

Or perhaps the very act and feeling of love is perfection in itself

 

[UsuallyPresent]

Or perhaps the very act and feeling of love is perfection in itself

Hrmm.... Interesting perspective. Not one I can find myself agreeing with - we're rationalizing creatures, not rational ones. We have tendencies to over- and under-apply emotion in our lives, leading to obsession or imbalance in a relationship, for instance.

Let's try this, then: What goal are you claiming is satisfied perfectly by "the very act and feeling of love" ? (Note: NOT contesting your/others' feelings, just trying tying it all back into the definition)

 

[MiaBabe23]

Hrmm.... Interesting perspective. Not one I can find myself agreeing with - we're rationalizing creatures, not rational ones. We have tendencies to over- and under-apply emotion in our lives, leading to obsession or imbalance in a relationship, for instance.

Let's try this, then: What goal are you claiming is satisfied perfectly by "the very act and feeling of love" ? (Note: NOT contesting your/others' feelings, just trying tying it all back into the definition)

But I have to take issue with the idea that perfection is about goals
After all - goals can be as self-serving as often as they’re altruistic
I don’t think you’re necessarily describing love there
Love, true love, can make us selfless, compassionate, and bring out the best in ourselves