****The Nature of Change

[popeye1945]

And by what reasoning would you conclude that perfection lacks change? You provide an assertion but no argument.

There is nothing perfect, for all is imperfection and flowing; at what point in this flow of imperfections had you discovered something perfect?

Again provide an argument, that is what I asked. Why does perfection lack change?

Because it would be something in and of itself, not part of the grander scheme of things, and not part of evolutionary adaptation. There is no such thing as an independent existence, and this is what perfection would imply. Perfection is alien to process, and all is process.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is nothing perfect, for all is imperfection and flowing; at what point in this flow of imperfections had you discovered something perfect?

Again provide an argument, that is what I asked. Why does perfection lack change?

Because it would be something in and of itself, not part of the grander scheme of things, and not part of evolutionary adaptation. There is no such thing as an independent existence, and this is what perfection would imply. Perfection is alien to process, and all is process.

Okay.

Now if everything that exists as a thing is grounded in the occurence of distinction, as a distinction allows a thing to occur for what it is and is not, then would not all things effectively be of a self-referencing process of distinctions within distinctions as a distinction...a self-referentiality of distinction?

[popeye1945]

Again provide an argument, that is what I asked. Why does perfection lack change?

Because it would be something in and of itself, not part of the grander scheme of things, and not part of evolutionary adaptation. There is no such thing as an independent existence, and this is what perfection would imply. Perfection is alien to process, and all is process.

Okay.

Now if everything that exists as a thing is grounded in the occurrence of distinction, as a distinction allows a thing to occur for what it is and is not, then would not all things effectively be of a self-referencing process of distinctions within distinctions as a distinction...a self-referentiality of distinction?

Everything that exists is imperfect and relative to a condition larger than itself. This larger reality is also an imperfect condition and relative to a condition larger than itself. Think wheels within wheels, the rotations of which the smaller condition must change in sync with the changing larger condition. This is most apparent in biological evolution through natural selection; the smaller condition is dependent for its existence on adapting to the larger condition. One can even see some variation in this example, but the rule holds. Take instances of symbiosis where one organism living freely invades the body of a larger organism; it has taken one step back from surviving in a larger realm, to scaling down to inhabit still a larger condition than itself, but not the larger realm of the physical world. It has chosen a community to adapt to or to be parasitic on this larger condition, the host organism. If its function is to be parasitic, it will undermine the health of its host organism/condition and must find a way to transfer itself from the host it is slowly killing to another member of the same species as a new host. No matter what the symbiotic relationship, parasitic, or mutualistic relationship, it adapts to the larger host condition, as the host is adapted to the outer physical world in which it has found sanctuary. There apparently is no goal or direction to this process beyond adapting to the upscaling or sometimes downscaling, as with the symbiotic relationship for parasitic or mutualistic, finding a place to call home. Adaptations, as the process is a luxurious gamble, life proliferates in bounty, and most mutations are deadly, with few making it through the process.

[Eodnhoj7]

Because it would be something in and of itself, not part of the grander scheme of things, and not part of evolutionary adaptation. There is no such thing as an independent existence, and this is what perfection would imply. Perfection is alien to process, and all is process.

Okay.

Now if everything that exists as a thing is grounded in the occurrence of distinction, as a distinction allows a thing to occur for what it is and is not, then would not all things effectively be of a self-referencing process of distinctions within distinctions as a distinction...a self-referentiality of distinction?

Everything that exists is imperfect and relative to a condition larger than itself. This larger reality is also an imperfect condition and relative to a condition larger than itself. Think wheels within wheels, the rotations of which the smaller condition must change in sync with the changing larger condition. This is most apparent in biological evolution through natural selection; the smaller condition is dependent for its existence on adapting to the larger condition. One can even see some variation in this example, but the rule holds. Take instances of symbiosis where one organism living freely invades the body of a larger organism; it has taken one step back from surviving in a larger realm, to scaling down to inhabit still a larger condition than itself, but not the larger realm of the physical world. It has chosen a community to adapt to or to be parasitic on this larger condition, the host organism. If its function is to be parasitic, it will undermine the health of its host organism/condition and must find a way to transfer itself from the host it is slowly killing to another member of the same species as a new host. No matter what the symbiotic relationship, parasitic, or mutualistic relationship, it adapts to the larger host condition, as the host is adapted to the outer physical world in which it has found sanctuary. There apparently is no goal or direction to this process beyond adapting to the upscaling or sometimes downscaling, as with the symbiotic relationship for parasitic or mutualistic, finding a place to call home. Adaptations, as the process is a luxurious gamble, life proliferates in bounty, and most mutations are deadly, with few making it through the process.

If it is wheels within wheels and a wheel is perfect symmetry, by what do you derive the notion of imperfection?

[popeye1945]

Okay.

Now if everything that exists as a thing is grounded in the occurrence of distinction, as a distinction allows a thing to occur for what it is and is not, then would not all things effectively be of a self-referencing process of distinctions within distinctions as a distinction...a self-referentiality of distinction?

Everything that exists is imperfect and relative to a condition larger than itself. This larger reality is also an imperfect condition and relative to a condition larger than itself. Think wheels within wheels, the rotations of which the smaller condition must change in sync with the changing larger condition. This is most apparent in biological evolution through natural selection; the smaller condition is dependent for its existence on adapting to the larger condition. One can even see some variation in this example, but the rule holds. Take instances of symbiosis where one organism living freely invades the body of a larger organism; it has taken one step back from surviving in a larger realm, to scaling down to inhabit still a larger condition than itself, but not the larger realm of the physical world. It has chosen a community to adapt to or to be parasitic on this larger condition, the host organism. If its function is to be parasitic, it will undermine the health of its host organism/condition and must find a way to transfer itself from the host it is slowly killing to another member of the same species as a new host. No matter what the symbiotic relationship, parasitic, or mutualistic relationship, it adapts to the larger host condition, as the host is adapted to the outer physical world in which it has found sanctuary. There apparently is no goal or direction to this process beyond adapting to the upscaling or sometimes downscaling, as with the symbiotic relationship for parasitic or mutualistic, finding a place to call home. Adaptations, as the process is a luxurious gamble, life proliferates in bounty, and most mutations are deadly, with few making it through the process.

If it is wheels within wheels and a wheel is perfect symmetry, by what do you derive the notion of imperfection?

It is imperfection that creates the plasticity of life plasma; perfection would concretize. All of earth and the cosmos is a flowing sea of imperfection. Nothing is perfect; there is near-perfection. There is nothing in the world one can point to as perfection, except perhaps one's girlfriend! There is no such thing as perfect symmetry.

[Age]

Fluidity observes a state of perfection for the moment as the completion of one thing is the dissolution into another by absence of potentiality where at the moment of change the thing is the fullest it can be.

There is no such thing as a perfect thing; a perfect thing would be an unchanging thing, a pathology in a world and cosmos of imperfections.

And by what reasoning would you conclude that perfection lacks change?

In 'the reason' that if some thing is, already, 'perfect', then 'that thing' does not need to be changed.

You provide an assertion but no argument.

Which is a very common trait of yours, also, "eodnhoj7".

[Age]

There is no such thing as a perfect thing; a perfect thing would be an unchanging thing, a pathology in a world and cosmos of imperfections.

And by what reasoning would you conclude that perfection lacks change? You provide an assertion but no argument.

There is nothing perfect, for all is imperfection and flowing; at what point in this flow of imperfections had you discovered something perfect?

Could the Universe, Itself, in the exact way that It is NOW, or 'always', be 'perfect', in and of Itself?

Could the 'flow of imperfections', for example, within human thought, be flowing towards some thing 'more perfect' be a form of 'Perfection', Itself?

[Age]

And by what reasoning would you conclude that perfection lacks change? You provide an assertion but no argument.

There is nothing perfect, for all is imperfection and flowing; at what point in this flow of imperfections had you discovered something perfect?

Again provide an argument, that is what I asked. Why does perfection lack change?

Why do you not provide of some thing 'perfect' if you have discovered 'some thing perfect'?

Have you discovered some thing perfect'?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

I have, already, informed you of why does perfection lack change, but will you inform 'me' of what you have discovered that is perfect, if you have?

[Age]

There is nothing perfect, for all is imperfection and flowing; at what point in this flow of imperfections had you discovered something perfect?

Again provide an argument, that is what I asked. Why does perfection lack change?

Because it would be something in and of itself, not part of the grander scheme of things, and not part of evolutionary adaptation. There is no such thing as an independent existence,

What then is the One and only existing Universe dependent upon, exactly?

and this is what perfection would imply. Perfection is alien to process, and all is process.

Could 'all' just being in One unified process', be a form of 'perfection', itself?

If no, then why not?

[Age]

Again provide an argument, that is what I asked. Why does perfection lack change?

Because it would be something in and of itself, not part of the grander scheme of things, and not part of evolutionary adaptation. There is no such thing as an independent existence, and this is what perfection would imply. Perfection is alien to process, and all is process.

Okay.

Now if everything that exists as a thing is grounded in the occurence of distinction, as a distinction allows a thing to occur for what it is and is not, then would not all things effectively be of a self-referencing process of distinctions within distinctions as a distinction...a self-referentiality of distinction?

Why do you not just say and write some thing like, the One Everything is without distinction, but every thing within the One Everything is with distinction?

Instead of the very hard to comprehend and understand way you word things, here?

See, if you did, then you and "popeye" would not be in disagreement and conflict, here. As, the One Everything is a process of constant-change, which is unchanging, and perfect. Whilst everything else is constantly changing, naturally. Or, just what the words, 'The nature of change', are just referring to, exactly.

[Eodnhoj7]

Everything that exists is imperfect and relative to a condition larger than itself. This larger reality is also an imperfect condition and relative to a condition larger than itself. Think wheels within wheels, the rotations of which the smaller condition must change in sync with the changing larger condition. This is most apparent in biological evolution through natural selection; the smaller condition is dependent for its existence on adapting to the larger condition. One can even see some variation in this example, but the rule holds. Take instances of symbiosis where one organism living freely invades the body of a larger organism; it has taken one step back from surviving in a larger realm, to scaling down to inhabit still a larger condition than itself, but not the larger realm of the physical world. It has chosen a community to adapt to or to be parasitic on this larger condition, the host organism. If its function is to be parasitic, it will undermine the health of its host organism/condition and must find a way to transfer itself from the host it is slowly killing to another member of the same species as a new host. No matter what the symbiotic relationship, parasitic, or mutualistic relationship, it adapts to the larger host condition, as the host is adapted to the outer physical world in which it has found sanctuary. There apparently is no goal or direction to this process beyond adapting to the upscaling or sometimes downscaling, as with the symbiotic relationship for parasitic or mutualistic, finding a place to call home. Adaptations, as the process is a luxurious gamble, life proliferates in bounty, and most mutations are deadly, with few making it through the process.

If it is wheels within wheels and a wheel is perfect symmetry, by what do you derive the notion of imperfection?

It is imperfection that creates the plasticity of life plasma; perfection would concretize. All of earth and the cosmos is a flowing sea of imperfection. Nothing is perfect; there is near-perfection. There is nothing in the world one can point to as perfection, except perhaps one's girlfriend! There is no such thing as perfect symmetry.

If reality is conditions within conditions then a recursive loop of reality occurs by means of cycling of both condition and conditionality. The perfect symmetry is that of recursion, cyclicality for the beginning and end unite thus leaving a perfect symmetry.

You have no argument as to why perfection has to be concrete for what ceases to change ceases to exist so your notions of perfection are self-negating thus leaving the contrast of imperfections to cease as well.

By your own logic you cannot say existence is imperfect.

[Age]

Because it would be something in and of itself, not part of the grander scheme of things, and not part of evolutionary adaptation. There is no such thing as an independent existence, and this is what perfection would imply. Perfection is alien to process, and all is process.

Okay.

Now if everything that exists as a thing is grounded in the occurrence of distinction, as a distinction allows a thing to occur for what it is and is not, then would not all things effectively be of a self-referencing process of distinctions within distinctions as a distinction...a self-referentiality of distinction?

Everything that exists is imperfect and relative to a condition larger than itself.

But, and again, the very Thing, Itself, which is 'the largest condition' could be every thing as the One Everything that exists, and which could in 'a sense', or even 'in Fact' be existing 'Perfectly', right?

Obviously this One Thing could never be relative to any condition larger than Itself as there is clearly no thing larger than Itself.

This larger reality is also an imperfect condition and relative to a condition larger than itself.

But, obviously you are going to have to 'stop' at the so-called 'largest Reality', right?

Think wheels within wheels, the rotations of which the smaller condition must change in sync with the changing larger condition.

Think of the largest wheel, it is, obviously, not within any other wheel.

This is most apparent in biological evolution through natural selection; the smaller condition is dependent for its existence on adapting to the larger condition. One can even see some variation in this example, but the rule holds. Take instances of symbiosis where one organism living freely invades the body of a larger organism; it has taken one step back from surviving in a larger realm, to scaling down to inhabit still a larger condition than itself, but not the larger realm of the physical world. It has chosen a community to adapt to or to be parasitic on this larger condition, the host organism. If its function is to be parasitic, it will undermine the health of its host organism/condition and must find a way to transfer itself from the host it is slowly killing to another member of the same species as a new host. No matter what the symbiotic relationship, parasitic, or mutualistic relationship, it adapts to the larger host condition, as the host is adapted to the outer physical world in which it has found sanctuary.

And, 'the Host', also known as the Universe, Itself, which is infinite and eternal, can never be killed of by any parasitic organisms like how human beings are 'currently', when this is being written, as 'the Host' just 'wipes them' off, and out.

There apparently is no goal or direction to this process beyond adapting to the upscaling or sometimes downscaling, as with the symbiotic relationship for parasitic or mutualistic, finding a place to call home.

Obviously, some like 'this one' have not yet recognised, noticed, and seen and understood, that the 'actual goal', and 'direction', is to keep moving 'forwards' to all living together in peace, and in harmony, together, as One.

Adaptations, as the process is a luxurious gamble, life proliferates in bounty, and most mutations are deadly, with few making it through the process.

Adapting, or 'survival of the fittest', which actually means, 'fitting in' and/or 'adapting' to 'the environment', and which has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'power' nor 'strength', means 'fitting in' with every thing, as One unified, 'system'.

That is, a Perfect working, eternal and infinite, system.

[popeye1945]

If it is wheels within wheels and a wheel is perfect symmetry, by what do you derive the notion of imperfection?

It is imperfection that creates the plasticity of life plasma; perfection would concretize. All of earth and the cosmos is a flowing sea of imperfection. Nothing is perfect; there is near-perfection. There is nothing in the world one can point to as perfection, except perhaps one's girlfriend! There is no such thing as perfect symmetry.

If reality is conditions within conditions then a recursive loop of reality occurs by means of cycling of both condition and conditionality. The perfect symmetry is that of recursion, cyclicality for the beginning and end unite thus leaving a perfect symmetry.

You have no argument as to why perfection has to be concrete for what ceases to change ceases to exist so your notions of perfection are self-negating thus leaving the contrast of imperfections to cease as well.

By your own logic you cannot say existence is imperfect.

We are getting nowhere here, just treading water, so I am signing off. Have a good one!!

[Eodnhoj7]

It is imperfection that creates the plasticity of life plasma; perfection would concretize. All of earth and the cosmos is a flowing sea of imperfection. Nothing is perfect; there is near-perfection. There is nothing in the world one can point to as perfection, except perhaps one's girlfriend! There is no such thing as perfect symmetry.

If reality is conditions within conditions then a recursive loop of reality occurs by means of cycling of both condition and conditionality. The perfect symmetry is that of recursion, cyclicality for the beginning and end unite thus leaving a perfect symmetry.

You have no argument as to why perfection has to be concrete for what ceases to change ceases to exist so your notions of perfection are self-negating thus leaving the contrast of imperfections to cease as well.

By your own logic you cannot say existence is imperfect.

We are getting nowhere here, just treading water, so I am signing off. Have a good one!!

No...you are going nowhere, what you actually thought your argument is coherent? It is not.

[popeye1945]

If reality is conditions within conditions then a recursive loop of reality occurs by means of cycling of both condition and conditionality. The perfect symmetry is that of recursion, cyclicality for the beginning and end unite thus leaving a perfect symmetry.

You have no argument as to why perfection has to be concrete for what ceases to change ceases to exist so your notions of perfection are self-negating thus leaving the contrast of imperfections to cease as well.

By your own logic you cannot say existence is imperfect.

We are getting nowhere here, just treading water, so I am signing off. Have a good one!!

No...you are going nowhere, what you actually thought your argument is coherent? It is not.

I agree!