I was thinking about this today – the status of this infinite field. (I’m still not conceding that infinity of it self is necessarily perfect edges or no edges – also even that the field is infinite it may just be very very very big!!) Does it have any reality or is it
A phaze space of possible alternative universes – in which case could it have some sort of virtual or imminent style of existence
Simply a conceptual field in our own head
Some sort of real existence as a void or what ever that the universes exist in
It sounds like you might be heading for Aquinas there – his line was that God is ultimate perfection and then all things participate in that or draw out of it in accordance with their forms. I.e. a human has a greater share of perfection then a stone etc…
Best summed up as all Gods Creatures got a place in the choir!
(Personally I’m hoping to keep God out of this as far as possible!)
Well, I think you are deviating from thinking about “perfection” into talking about “what you hope the perfection to be”.
Generally speaking, I see the exercise of thinking about “perfection” (or anything ultimate/absolute) to be the act of cutting away imperfect things.
Now, the way you are thinking seems to attache more property to your sub-perfect thing such as “organic perfection”, so that your view of the reality to be confirmed/affirmed/explained, And it’s adding “imperfection” and polluting it, rather than removing unwanted things.
I’m not saying it’s bad or you shouldn’t do that. But it might be a bit misleading to use a word like “perfection” to indicated things/states with lots of imperfection.
As for the infinity, I think the notion of “infinity” is created finite number is more or less “specific number” and there is a sense of limitation/confinement coming from the “separated” and “countable” thing/nature.
Although we tend to see “infinite” as the largest/maximum/etc, I think it was expressing our hope to have “no limit” associated and inherent in number counting operation.
In other words, I think “infinity” signify (in our subconsciousness) the lack of numbering/counting property and thus something without “separation”, which is required for numbering/counting.
Having more specific properties can be regarded as “good” thing. But it’s the opposite when it comes to the matter of seeking perfection/infinite/ultimate/absolute/etc. And it’s because these terms indicate something that is free of ALL sort of limitation associated with properties.
“Perfect object” would be “no object” or “non object”.
Being an “object” means it’s inept to be “non object”, whatever it can be.
Affirming certain property is confining the matter, making it "inept:.
Affirming is excluding, and thus it makes things “imperfect”.
If you add up lots of affirmation, it mean you added lots of exclusion (and contradiction among different exclusions).
So, it will be all-messed-up.
I don;t think infinite intellect nor infinite number to exist. It’s an imaginary matter and simple expression of the hope, I would say.
Sure. What it the “perfection” you imagine?
What’s the nature?
And possibly most importantly, why you want to think about “perfection”?
What is your expectation/hope about or around “perfection”?
Well, if your “bliss” to be perfect, then it should be “stateless” and even without “awareness”.
Usually, it’s regarded as the “death” (or total death) and majority of people don’t like it.
*If you have one thing that you consider to be perfect, then you cannot consider something else to be perfect. A cube can be a perfect cube just as anything can be perfectly itself, but is it a perfect thing?
Its kind of a ‘name of the rose’ thing, or ‘the importance of being Ernest even’.
However big it is, there is always something left remaining, it is still limited.
that’s what I would go for, ~ an empty medium betwixt all.
Yeah I agree to keep god out where possible, I think in the past we have tried to anthropomorphise the infinite as we had no other way of dealing with it.
See here*. I agree we are stretching the idea a bit to far, that there is little difference between perfect and imperfect. The thing with transience is; how can we define something that is changing as perfect as in any moment it is in a state of flux and will change by the next moment.
So we go back in a circle, if there is perfection anything other than it is a relative imperfection, even if its its own perfection like the mathematical cube.
In the west and in math perhaps, but the notion of infinity is far more than a mathematical one. In fact our math comes from the hindu notions of the infinite [e.g. you can take an infinity from an infinity and have an infinity remaining], and there it is thought of as an empty space without limits. The idea comes from ideas like brahma impersonified and nirvana, though western spirituality has similar notions [e.g. druidic caugant [oneness/source], and Egyptian nameless one].
Indeed, now we just have to imagine what that is as a reality?
Agreed.
So is a non object inept at being an object? If we see reality as infinity and its expression then somehow reality is the answer in form. Can perfection demand that everything else is imperfect, so by being perfect it bypasses its lack of objectness, thus is not in effect inept in this manner?
If you can draw a reality map without a real infinity then I will agree with you!
If awareness is base and infinite, then it is perfection and it knows it. don’t you just hate bitches who know they are perfect
Just to note I got[i] the Parallax View /i in me local trendy dvd store and gona have a look tomorrow - nothing to offer on the orginal post I’m afraid!!
Well, do you want to talk about relative and limited “perfection”, such as the perfection of “perfect cube”? (And I’m not sure if we can really obtain a perfect cube…)
Or you want to think/talk about the perfection without any dependency/limitation or any particular property (on which certain object can be “perfect”)?
“Without limit” can be a key word in our conception on “infinite”, “perfect”, “absolute”, and so on.
A point in a time/space without any mass, size, surface, can be one.
Also, I don’t know if you can really find any “separation” in the physical reality.
Even when things seems separate (or separated), I don’t think we can define clear boundary because any object is interacting with surrounding space/matter and thus connected.
If you are somehow seeking “Perfect non-object”, then it would be “any object”, I’d say. But it wasn’t the case.
And it was the example of the limiting nature of any property (such as being an “object”). Also, it was the example of “relative perfection” about something, about certain property, ending up in the lack of very something/property.
I don’t know what kind of reality you are thinking about.
To me, “reality” is anything that is pulling/captivating my attention at the given moment. And I don’t think I need infinite intellect nor infinite number to make up rough map of my realities.
If you are talking about “physical reality”, I don’t see any need for infinite intellect nor infinite number, either.
If something is countable/measurable, I think we can count/measure.
If we can’t count/measure, then it’s simply uncountable/unmeasurable and it’s not “infinite”.
When I’m in love, with a bitch, she is “perfect” in every way.
And at the peek of the love, my awareness is sucked by her that I only see her and my situational awareness and the notion of time decrease considerably to the point it becomes nearly timeless. So, a bitch may create nearly perfect bliss for me.
Oh, the awareness isn’t perfect because it changes the state (at least to me).
It’s not countable, and it’s not really measurable (although we can compare certain state/density of awareness against another, to some degree). So, I don’t think it’s infinite.
Interesting post, I agree-ish with most of it but I would like to explore this area before anything…
Anything non-quantifiable is infinite? If we cannot define edges, do we not end up with the infinite? Awareness may have qualities as we use it, where it is then called consciousness, but I think there is a kind of awareness that is base, unchanging and has a lack of definition.
It depends of your take/notion of “infinite”.
Personally, I think “infinite” is a term some of us express the hope/desire for something “limitless”, coming from the recognition and fear/dislike/pain of limitation.
Well, we can think of “pure awareness” or the awareness without any focus. A sort of round non-directional awareness.
But even this has a kind of wave or changes in its state and I think the awareness itself is made of vibration/oscillation which implies the changes of its state. (Maybe you can feel it a bit at the climax of really great sex or in great pain or in certain type of meditation, when you get white-out situation. )
So, it’s not perfect if the perfect must be stateless.
This seams like a very eastern way of seeing such awareness [I.e. as pinnacle], personally I think it is without vibration or oscillation until something external to it makes it so.
