the ultimate perfection

[China Cat Sunflower]

CCS hi chris
interesting post thank you!

Thank you! It's a great pleasure to me to be able to participate in this kind of conversation, even though I'm hardly qualified to present any solid point of view. Still, it's fun, and good mental exercise to muse over these kinds of things.

... but is there a problem with function and meaning, laws and principles tend to act on many things often universally, so is there a flow of functions that result in perfections but that don’t belong to them?
conversely we can have a perfect circle in math and meaning but a perfect physical circle cannot exist. the holistic version of course can though hmm.

I'm suggesting that in this sort of organic, anti-platonic, bottom-up way of looking at things, an idealized conception of perfection is built up in the process of honing the form, fit, and function of actual objects. Here, purely conceptual perfection both leads and follows. It is the reservoir of vision from which the artist draws inspiration, but it is built of the potentialities discovered by him in the course of progressive experimentation with, and successive adaptation of materials and methods. As the craft is perfected the perfection of the ideal is created and refined. In this sense the perfect circle is the inspiration for the actual circle, but what creates the conception of the ideal circle is the extension of functional possibilities learned in the construction of the actual circle.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

There is a problem of perspective in all of this. We can't observe the observer objectively. We can never cut the observer out of the causal chain. I can never really imagine myself as the egg. I always have to be the chicken even if I'm pretending to be the egg.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

What about a more fractal model of imprecise self-similarity as a way to accommodate essential chaos?

Chris

 

[Paladin]

Let me be sure I understand you Chris, perfect imperfection replicated to infinity?

 

[_Z_]

well i am lost with the chicken and egg thing chris unless you are referring to the origin of a given perfect form e.g. the circle. there is the idea in our minds and that blueprint is perfect, whenever we try to make it real it becomes imperfect.
is that something like what you meant?

paladin, yes, that sounds about right ~ a fractal can be perfect imperfection in its parts and a perfection in its whole.

can we say that once concieved the idea is perfection but its implimentation is not, except where you begin with inperfection [the blueprint] and end up with a perfect form of that. so it is two directional.

the magic and the 'art' then is in forming the idea, when viewing such a work we are trying to see what that art was.

 

[Paladin]

can we say that once concieved the idea is perfection but its implimentation is not, except where you begin with inperfection [the blueprint] and end up with a perfect form of that. so it is two directional.

the magic and the 'art' then is in forming the idea, when viewing such a work we are trying to see what that art was.

I suppose then that all this would depend on the accuracy of the human consciousness?

I keep thinking about Emily Latella: "Whats all this I keep hearing about whirled peas?"

 

[_Z_]

I suppose then that all this would depend on the accuracy of the human consciousness?

yes to capture the form that the artist had, or indeed to create anew from the beholders perspective. i dont though think it belongs to the consciousness as that is merely a tool of interpretation and of imagination, not the forms themselves. perhaps the art of imperfection is that very thing ~ to create anew, to find new Forms is to add to eternity. i rather hope that the ancient world would exist in all its splendour somehow, although it is more likely that the idea of it is the eternal version.

I keep thinking about Emily Latella: "Whats all this I keep hearing about whirled peas?"

i don’t know that quote, sorry.

 

[Paladin]

No Z, you wouldn't know Emily, she was a character from a gifted comedienne Gilda Radner from the show Saturday Night Live

Her Character was always mis-hearing things and then going off on a rant about them on a fictional news program Weekend Update

Kind of like: "Whats all this I hear about violins on tv? I don't see whats so bad about it and why the children shouldn't be exposed to them, why music is so very important to a childs upbringing and......"

Chevy Chase: Uh, Miss Emily? Miss Emily? Its, violence on tv, violence not violins"

Emily: OHHHHHH, thats very different! (looking sheepishly at the camera) Nevermind.

 

[Dondi]

I am finding this conversation quite invigorating. I am woefully unqualified myself in such matters, but I do have a question, if I may. Excuse my ignorance if things are not apparent to me.

You talk about blueprint. My question is where does the blueprint originate? Is it an ideal our minds (individually or collectively), is it some mathemetical construct (though I suppose that is problematic when talking about imperfect perfects, as discussed above), or is it something else?

In the case of a perfect circle, I can see that the ideal is a geometric shape of infinite number of equal points from the center. That is a mathematical construct. But when we get to something like a vase, how does one conceptualize the blueprint? And what kind of vase are we talking about?

 

[_Z_]

paladin, hi

Kind of like: "Whats all this I hear about violins on tv? I don’t see whats so bad about it and why the children shouldn’t be exposed to them, why music is so very important to a childs upbringing and......"
Chevy Chase: Uh, Miss Emily? Miss Emily? Its, violence on tv, violence not violins"
Emily: OHHHHHH, thats very different! (looking sheepishly at the camera) Nevermind.

ah i see lols. i like her. comedy is art.

dondi, hi
i have very little formal training in these fields, i dropped out of collage etc etc .

You talk about blueprint. My question is where does the blueprint originate?

i would explore the idea of an original blueprint for all things, that would be a thread in and of itself. it can be any blueprint or idea.

In the case of a perfect circle, I can see that the ideal is a geometric shape of infinite number of equal points from the center. That is a mathematical construct. But when we get to something like a vase, how does one conceptualize the blueprint? And what kind of vase are we talking about?

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.

a vase is too a perfect thing, until we try to say what it is or to build it. we can make a blueprint of a mathematical vase [not perfect] then build it and have a perfect holistic version of a vase. perhaps it is the creation that makes the vase real or makes the eternal version ~ as if eternity is skimming off the surface of existence continually renewing itself.

 

[Paladin]

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

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]

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

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

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.

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]

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