|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 21, 2020 3:53:25 GMT
The abstraction of a perfect square comes from the emergence of being from void or other possible being. The square as perfect exists as a summation of all possible squares.
Perfection is a summation of qualities that lack nothing, as such the simple point from which all being is both composed of and composes exists as a perfect phenomenon considering all being is both composed of and composes points.
The point as an abstraction, and an empirical phenomenon, necessitates perfection as coming from an emergence given all points emerge from and contract to a point thus necessitating a self reflective quality where the point exists through a universal looping process. This looping process necessitates perfection given the loop is perfect as it is a self contained whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 21, 2020 6:55:24 GMT
Ok, let's say that development of the universe really is, and the perfection is sorta process, not a quality or kinda. Then for a square to be perfect it is necessary to be concord or to match with some perfectness.
There are two more obviouls paths: a) to be perfect a thing is needed to participate somehow to the perfectness (and idea of it, if in Plato's metaphysics); b) to win "the race" - to reach a certain point that automatically allows a thing to be... inwardly in a circle of perfect beings. (I don't mind there are many other routes; these routes came to mind mind firstly.)
If we agreed a thing didn't have any properties or abilities that allowed it to be perfect, then a thing must win somehow "the race" to get the circle of perfect things, or reach the piedestal or something like that. And in this circumstances a square has to participate in a race with the other squares; else - for why?
And the most general question - why there are other squares for the one of them to be perfect? How the other squares make the perfectness of one of the squeare to be actual?
We can think - for some sake - that a square is a sum of another squares similarly to DNA as something perfect that contains all the previous info about the previous DNA. If to aim this example or similar, we would just be talking about something to be conventional, not true by its nature.
So, the other ones squares that being summed in one perfect square either perfect, or not. If they are: it might lead to some other routes, let's say it says that (P) for a something to be perfect it's needed to be consisted of the perfect elements; (D) a perfectness of a thing makes its elements to be perfect; (E) some other theories. I can't say which one of the thoughts I must take, but I'm pretty sure that these types of questions will not give us any clue to open what the perfect is, and how can it be achieved. Not knowing it - the cause of perfectness - how can we dare to find anything worth about it?
So, we can say then that a perfect circle or a perfect triangle are so (=they are what they are), because they are sum of such-and-such parts... And this won't explain the perfectness of theirs.
To be perfect is to be an ideal or such a standard that automatically will be chosen by ours each next time when we wish to measure something or etc. - I think from this you can see why ideal and measure is so close to the idea, and that all these things are put together in some way. The ideal thing is something that exists as a measure or a point for another things. We take the ideal thing to guess about the other things what are they. And it seems that it is a reason why there is no perfect or ideal things, because we cannot watch any ideas, but only guessing about them.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2020 14:05:41 GMT
Perfection for me is a property of being in itself. If you include summation in the concept of perfectness, you erase the possibility of being perfect in itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 21, 2020 16:26:46 GMT
Perfection for me is a property of being in itself. If you include summation in the concept of perfectness, you erase the possibility of being perfect in itself. A perfect square is the summation of all possible squares. |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2020 18:48:37 GMT
Perfection for me is a property of being in itself. If you include summation in the concept of perfectness, you erase the possibility of being perfect in itself. A perfect square is the summation of all possible squares. Correct if you ignore the perfection of the square in itself.
If you ignore, you lack self property that assigns perfection. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 23, 2020 3:55:21 GMT
A perfect square is the summation of all possible squares. Correct if you ignore the perfection of the square in itself.
If you ignore, you lack self property that assigns perfection. 1. Perfection is both relative and absolute. 2. It is absolute given all being relative to Nothingness is perfect. This perfection is derived from its unity. 3. It is relative given one grade of being has a higher degree of perfection compared to another. This perfection is derived from its relations. |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2020 21:26:12 GMT
Correct if you ignore the perfection of the square in itself.
If you ignore, you lack self property that assigns perfection. 1. Perfection is both relative and absolute. 2. It is absolute given all being relative to Nothingness is perfect. This perfection is derived from its unity. 3. It is relative given one grade of being has a higher degree of perfection compared to another. This perfection is derived from its relations.
Depends on substantiality.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 24, 2020 2:53:39 GMT
1. Perfection is both relative and absolute. 2. It is absolute given all being relative to Nothingness is perfect. This perfection is derived from its unity. 3. It is relative given one grade of being has a higher degree of perfection compared to another. This perfection is derived from its relations.
Depends on substantiality.
That is the relative aspect of existence. |
|
