Walker wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 12:25 pm
By that measure, perfection is merely a concept. A thought. A notion dependent upon the known. Something that exists only in the mind and in remembered snapshots, such as when Franz Klammer won the gold with that fearless feat.
Yes, all knowledge is the subjective property of a conscious subject, and it never belongs to the object. That is all there is: ideas, concepts, and how one feels about them. Your apparent reality, your everyday reality, is entirely subjective, the only means of knowing anything. Just thought of a perfect form, Cameron Diaz --lol!! Subjectivity is such that we cannot escape it, and there is no way to prove that the reality we experience exists in the absence of biological consciousness.
If that is the case than you only speak for yourself.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 8:17 am
Biological form is never perfect in the sense of being complete, a plastic form is ideal because it is temporal and ever adapting to a larger context. Biological form is always adapting to the ever-changing. There is never perfection, there is but process.
But if nothing is perfect, then the process is not perfect and if the process is not perfect who can claim any depth of truth to it?
Truth is experience, and experience does not always agree with physical reality, but experience/knowledge/truth is always true to the biology doing the experiencing. Change the state of one's biology, and you change its apparent reality/experiences of that biology. Perfect is not a measurement; it is a claimed state that has no reality. Everything is in flow, perfection could not relate to a changing world, it would be an unchanging, an impossible state of being.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 8:17 am
Biological form is never perfect in the sense of being complete, a plastic form is ideal because it is temporal and ever adapting to a larger context. Biological form is always adapting to the ever-changing. There is never perfection, there is but process.
But if nothing is perfect, then the process is not perfect and if the process is not perfect who can claim any depth of truth to it?
Truth is experience, and experience does not always agree with physical reality, but experience/knowledge/truth is always true to the biology doing the experiencing. Change the state of one's biology, and you change its apparent reality/experiences of that biology. Perfect is not a measurement; it is a claimed state that has no reality. Everything is in flow, perfection could not relate to a changing world, it would be an unchanging, an impossible state of being.
If experience does not always agree with physical reality and biology is physical, but truth is always true to biology...what personal experience are you trying to exert other than a sense of inherent tension?
But if nothing is perfect, then the process is not perfect and if the process is not perfect who can claim any depth of truth to it?
Truth is experience, and experience does not always agree with physical reality, but experience/knowledge/truth is always true to the biology doing the experiencing. Change the state of one's biology, and you change its apparent reality/experiences of that biology. Perfect is not a measurement; it is a claimed state that has no reality. Everything is in flow, perfection could not relate to a changing world, it would be an unchanging, an impossible state of being.
If experience does not always agree with physical reality, and biology is physical, but truth is always true to biology...what personal experience are you trying to exert other than a sense of inherent tension?
I am not personally trying to exert any sense of tension, just laying out the basic reality of being human or any other organism. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Experience/knowledge and values are products of biological consciousness; they are what is experienced, felt about, and judged about. Meaning is the effects of the outside world on one's biology. There is no sound or color without biological interpretations of the frequencies and vibrations of forms of energy, this is how you know the world subjectively/personally. You hurt; something out there hurt you.
Truth is experience, and experience does not always agree with physical reality, but experience/knowledge/truth is always true to the biology doing the experiencing. Change the state of one's biology, and you change its apparent reality/experiences of that biology. Perfect is not a measurement; it is a claimed state that has no reality. Everything is in flow, perfection could not relate to a changing world, it would be an unchanging, an impossible state of being.
If experience does not always agree with physical reality, and biology is physical, but truth is always true to biology...what personal experience are you trying to exert other than a sense of inherent tension?
I am not personally trying to exert any sense of tension, just laying out the basic reality of being human or any other organism. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Experience/knowledge and values are products of biological consciousness; they are what is experienced, felt about, and judged about. Meaning is the effects of the outside world on one's biology. There is no sound or color without biological interpretations of the frequencies and vibrations of forms of energy, this is how you know the world subjectively/personally. You hurt; something out there hurt you.
Biology is a distinction within experience. To say one comes before the other in a hierarchy would be futile when these distinctions occur in a revolving loop.
If experience does not always agree with physical reality, and biology is physical, but truth is always true to biology...what personal experience are you trying to exert other than a sense of inherent tension?
I am not personally trying to exert any sense of tension, just laying out the basic reality of being human or any other organism. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Experience/knowledge and values are products of biological consciousness; they are what is experienced, felt about, and judged about. Meaning is the effects of the outside world on one's biology. There is no sound or color without biological interpretations of the frequencies and vibrations of forms of energy, this is how you know the world subjectively/personally. You hurt; something out there hurt you.
Biology is a distinction within experience. To say one comes before the other in a hierarchy would be futile when these distinctions occur in a revolving loop.
Life is that which experiences, and experiences are the alterations/changes made to our biology by the outside world; judgment of those experiences is what we call meanings/knowledge.
I am not personally trying to exert any sense of tension, just laying out the basic reality of being human or any other organism. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Experience/knowledge and values are products of biological consciousness; they are what is experienced, felt about, and judged about. Meaning is the effects of the outside world on one's biology. There is no sound or color without biological interpretations of the frequencies and vibrations of forms of energy, this is how you know the world subjectively/personally. You hurt; something out there hurt you.
Biology is a distinction within experience. To say one comes before the other in a hierarchy would be futile when these distinctions occur in a revolving loop.
Life is that which experiences, and experiences are the alterations/changes made to our biology by the outside world; judgment of those experiences is what we call meanings/knowledge.
That which life experiences becomes inherent within life so the distinction is merely one of the many infinite distinctions of "this or that"....and there is no law over how and what distinction is to be made...hence in many regards your argument has no expression of a true fundamental law that you seek.
Biology is a distinction within experience. To say one comes before the other in a hierarchy would be futile when these distinctions occur in a revolving loop.
Life is that which experiences, and experiences are the alterations/changes made to our biology by the outside world; judgment of those experiences is what we call meanings/knowledge.
That which life experiences becomes inherent within life so the distinction is merely one of the many infinite distinctions of "this or that"....and there is no law over how and what distinction is to be made...hence in many regards your argument has no expression of a true fundamental law that you seek.
You need to clarify; do you not believe that biology/life is the measure and the meaning of all things? Are you trying to define focus? Yes, you need to clarify.
Life is that which experiences, and experiences are the alterations/changes made to our biology by the outside world; judgment of those experiences is what we call meanings/knowledge.
That which life experiences becomes inherent within life so the distinction is merely one of the many infinite distinctions of "this or that"....and there is no law over how and what distinction is to be made...hence in many regards your argument has no expression of a true fundamental law that you seek.
You need to clarify; do you not believe that biology/life is the measure and the meaning of all things? Are you trying to define focus? Yes, you need to clarify.
The biological exists because of what is not biological thus experience is not limited to biology. An organism cannot have experience without the inorganic.
That which life experiences becomes inherent within life so the distinction is merely one of the many infinite distinctions of "this or that"....and there is no law over how and what distinction is to be made...hence in many regards your argument has no expression of a true fundamental law that you seek.
You need to clarify; do you not believe that biology/life is the measure and the meaning of all things? Are you trying to define focus? Yes, you need to clarify.
The biological exists because of what is not biological thus experience is not limited to biology. An organism cannot have experience without the inorganic.
There is an old saying that, subject and object stand or fall together; both are necessary for the experience of apparent reality, for apparent reality is the effects of the physical world as object on an organism's standing biology. These changes, thus made, give us experience/meaning.
You need to clarify; do you not believe that biology/life is the measure and the meaning of all things? Are you trying to define focus? Yes, you need to clarify.
The biological exists because of what is not biological thus experience is not limited to biology. An organism cannot have experience without the inorganic.
There is an old saying that, subject and object stand or fall together; both are necessary for the experience of apparent reality, for apparent reality is the effects of the physical world as object on an organism's standing biology. These changes, thus made, give us experience/meaning.
The fact that the subject cannot have experience without the object means experience by nature is not limited to subject as the object allows the subject to exist.
The biological exists because of what is not biological thus experience is not limited to biology. An organism cannot have experience without the inorganic.
There is an old saying that, subject and object stand or fall together; both are necessary for the experience of apparent reality, for apparent reality is the effects of the physical world as object on an organism's standing biology. These changes, thus made, give us experience/meaning.
The fact that the subject cannot have experience without the object means experience by nature is not limited to subject as the object allows the subject to exist.
Yes, that is the meaning of subject and object stand or fall together, take one away, and the other ceases to be.
There is an old saying that, subject and object stand or fall together; both are necessary for the experience of apparent reality, for apparent reality is the effects of the physical world as object on an organism's standing biology. These changes, thus made, give us experience/meaning.
The fact that the subject cannot have experience without the object means experience by nature is not limited to subject as the object allows the subject to exist.
Yes, that is the meaning of subject and object stand or fall together, take one away, and the other ceases to be.
The fact that the subject cannot have experience without the object means experience by nature is not limited to subject as the object allows the subject to exist.
Yes, that is the meaning of subject and object stand or fall together, take one away, and the other ceases to be.
So experience is not purely subjective.
Subjective experience is how you know the world; there is no other way of knowing.
Yes, that is the meaning of subject and object stand or fall together, take one away, and the other ceases to be.
So experience is not purely subjective.
Subjective experience is how you know the world; there is no other way of knowing.
Then by default you are claiming all of this is limited by your own head and what you state becomes less an expression of absolute truth and more of a relativistic state of your current mind.