Yes, a process or system of imperfection could be seen as the perfect imperfection by the processes or systems that must adapt to it. There is no such thing as something perfect; all is imperfection in motion and change. All things are causes to other things, and the reactions of those other things are again causes to the outside world, a cosmic dance of evolving imperfections. This process is endless and directionless.
Something that reaches its innate potential, by degree of dissolution where said potential is reached by means of cessation of actuality, is perfect.
Tell me something that reaches its innate potential. You're blowing smoke here, lad, nonsense trying to sound profound.
Something that reaches its potential ceases to change as it lacks the potential to do so for its potential is absent. Things only occur by degree of change and this change requires the potentiality to do so. Without change a thing ceases for change allows it to be distinct. When something is indistinct it ceases to be actualized.
Upon absence of potentiality a thing is complete, by degree of completion it is perfect for perfection is completion.
Something that reaches its innate potential, by degree of dissolution where said potential is reached by means of cessation of actuality, is perfect.
Tell me something that reaches its innate potential. You're blowing smoke here, lad, nonsense trying to sound profound.
Something that reaches its potential ceases to change as it lacks the potential to do so for its potential is absent. Things only occur by degree of change and this change requires the potentiality to do so. Without change a thing ceases for change allows it to be distinct. When something is indistinct it ceases to be actualized.
Upon absence of potentiality a thing is complete, by degree of completion it is perfect for perfection is completion.
Nothing is ever complete; it's imperfection that is ever evolving, and that is what evolution is all about. Everything evolves.
Tell me something that reaches its innate potential. You're blowing smoke here, lad, nonsense trying to sound profound.
Something that reaches its potential ceases to change as it lacks the potential to do so for its potential is absent. Things only occur by degree of change and this change requires the potentiality to do so. Without change a thing ceases for change allows it to be distinct. When something is indistinct it ceases to be actualized.
Upon absence of potentiality a thing is complete, by degree of completion it is perfect for perfection is completion.
Nothing is ever complete; it's imperfection that is ever evolving, and that is what evolution is all about. Everything evolves.
Completion of a thing is the absence of change, an absence of change is an absence of contrast by means of distinction. Without change things cease. A thing is complete when it cease to change, the absence of change is a thing reaching its potentiality for when potentiality is reached the potentiality for it to occur ceases.
Completion is an absence of potentiality and by degree an absence of existence for there is no distinction of the thing present.
Evolution is merely adaptation to circumstance, it is not the better or worse degree of a thing but rather a cycling of the thing and conditions. Evolution is non linear.
Something that reaches its potential ceases to change as it lacks the potential to do so for its potential is absent. Things only occur by degree of change and this change requires the potentiality to do so. Without change a thing ceases for change allows it to be distinct. When something is indistinct it ceases to be actualized.
Upon absence of potentiality a thing is complete, by degree of completion it is perfect for perfection is completion.
Nothing is ever complete; it's imperfection that is ever evolving, and that is what evolution is all about. Everything evolves.
Completion of a thing is the absence of change, an absence of change is an absence of contrast by means of distinction. Without change things cease. A thing is complete when it cease to change, the absence of change is a thing reaching its potentiality for when potentiality is reached the potentiality for it to occur ceases.
Completion is an absence of potentiality and by degree an absence of existence.
Nothing is ever complete; that is what evolving and adaptation are. All is an endless process, just as there is no such thing as perfection, so too there is no such thing as completeness.
Nothing is ever complete; it's imperfection that is ever evolving, and that is what evolution is all about. Everything evolves.
Completion of a thing is the absence of change, an absence of change is an absence of contrast by means of distinction. Without change things cease. A thing is complete when it cease to change, the absence of change is a thing reaching its potentiality for when potentiality is reached the potentiality for it to occur ceases.
Completion is an absence of potentiality and by degree an absence of existence.
Nothing is ever complete; that is what evolving and adaptation are. All is an endless process, just as there is no such thing as perfection, so too there is no such thing as completeness.
If a thing lacks potentiality then it reached its potentiality, for it actualized all it can be, thus is complete.
Perfection is full actualization of a thing.
Perfection exists because things fully actualized, we know they fully actualized by degree of them ceasing to exist.
Completion of a thing is the absence of change, an absence of change is an absence of contrast by means of distinction. Without change things cease. A thing is complete when it cease to change, the absence of change is a thing reaching its potentiality for when potentiality is reached the potentiality for it to occur ceases.
Completion is an absence of potentiality and by degree an absence of existence.
Nothing is ever complete; that is what evolving and adaptation are. All is an endless process, just as there is no such thing as perfection, so too there is no such thing as completeness.
If a thing lacks potentiality then it reached its potentiality, for it actualized all it can be, thus is complete.
Perfection is full actualization of a thing.
Perfection exists because things fully actualized, we know they fully actualized by degree of them ceasing to exist.
You're trying to avoid how meaningless the process is. So, you are telling me that that which ceases to exist is perfect, its actualized, can you hear how silly that sounds? Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can simply change states. Change is the evolutionary process we are all subjected to.
Nothing is ever complete; that is what evolving and adaptation are. All is an endless process, just as there is no such thing as perfection, so too there is no such thing as completeness.
If a thing lacks potentiality then it reached its potentiality, for it actualized all it can be, thus is complete.
Perfection is full actualization of a thing.
Perfection exists because things fully actualized, we know they fully actualized by degree of them ceasing to exist.
You're trying to avoid how meaningless the process is. So, you are telling me that that which ceases to exist is perfect, its actualized, can you hear how silly that sounds? Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can simply change states. Change is the evolutionary process we are all subjected to.
How can a process be meaningless when one thing is directed towards another by degree of transformation induced change? Meaning is directive by nature and this directive nature necessitates change as pivotal.
All things, by nature of change, and imbibed with meaning.
A thing that reached its potentiality ceases because of absence of potential, the cessation of a thing is the expression of perfection for nothing can be added or substracted as its potential ceases.
If a thing lacks potentiality then it reached its potentiality, for it actualized all it can be, thus is complete.
Perfection is full actualization of a thing.
Perfection exists because things fully actualized, we know they fully actualized by degree of them ceasing to exist.
There is no such thing as perfection; the evolutionary process does not deal with perfection; it would concretize and decay. Imperfection is the engine of creation. All things are imperfect and malleable to change.
You're trying to avoid how meaningless the process is. So, you are telling me that that which ceases to exist is perfect, its actualized, can you hear how silly that sounds? Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can simply change states. Change is the evolutionary process we are all subjected to.
How can a process be meaningless when one thing is directed towards another by degree of transformation induced change? Meaning is directive by nature and this directive nature necessitates change as pivotal.
All things, by nature of change, and imbibed with meaning.
A thing that reached its potentiality ceases because of absence of potential, the cessation of a thing is the expression of perfection for nothing can be added or substracted as its potential ceases.
The physical world is utterly meaningless. As I stated earlier, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Life, biology, is the only source of meaning in the world. You have no foundation for the above.
There is no such thing as perfection; the evolutionary process does not deal with perfection; it would concretize and decay. Imperfection is the engine of creation. All things are imperfect and malleable to change.
You're trying to avoid how meaningless the process is. So, you are telling me that that which ceases to exist is perfect, its actualized, can you hear how silly that sounds? Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can simply change states. Change is the evolutionary process we are all subjected to.
How can a process be meaningless when one thing is directed towards another by degree of transformation induced change? Meaning is directive by nature and this directive nature necessitates change as pivotal.
All things, by nature of change, and imbibed with meaning.
A thing that reached its potentiality ceases because of absence of potential, the cessation of a thing is the expression of perfection for nothing can be added or substracted as its potential ceases.
The physical world is utterly meaningless. As I stated earlier, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Life, biology, is the only source of meaning in the world. You have no foundation for the above.
I have nothing but foundation, for one word leads to another thus deriving an inherent meaning as the sentence itself. Given organic life is composed of material one cannot erase meaning from the material by degree of the nature of thought which comes from it.
The physical world is but a distinction by awareness, and awareness is but the act of distinction evidenced by not only mind and matter but the fusion of both as the organism itself...and this sentence is physical. If meaning occurs only through the organic (as you claim), and the organic claims material as meaningful, then meaning is not limited by the organic by said nature of the organic.
How can a process be meaningless when one thing is directed towards another by degree of transformation induced change? Meaning is directive by nature and this directive nature necessitates change as pivotal.
All things, by nature of change, and imbibed with meaning.
A thing that reached its potentiality ceases because of absence of potential, the cessation of a thing is the expression of perfection for nothing can be added or substracted as its potential ceases.
The physical world is utterly meaningless. As I stated earlier, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Life, biology, is the only source of meaning in the world. You have no foundation for the above.
I have nothing but foundation, for one word leads to another thus deriving an inherent meaning as the sentence itself. Given organic life is composed of material one cannot erase meaning from the material by degree of the nature of thought which comes from it.
The physical world is but a distinction by awareness, and awareness is but the act of distinction evidenced by not only mind and matter but the fusion of both as the organism itself...and this sentence is physical. If meaning occurs only through the organic (as you claim), and the organic claims material as meaningful, then meaning is not limited by the organic by said nature of the organic.
Meaning can be outsourced.
Meaning is projected onto a meaningless world; you do not experience the reality of what is out there, you experience how what is out there alters/changes your biological state. You do not experience an objective reality; you experience your own body in its various altered states, which gives you experiences, and through the understanding of those experiences, meanings arise in the subjective consciousness. Those meanings are then redirected to the physical world as if those bodily experiences belonged to the non-living. Try to remember, there is only one source of meaning in the world, and that is life itself. There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to biological consciousness. Your apparent reality is totally biological experiences. It is a biological readout of the energies that had transformed the state of your standing biology. Your everyday reality is a biological interpretation dependent upon the form of your biology as it is played on by the energies without.
The physical world is utterly meaningless. As I stated earlier, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Life, biology, is the only source of meaning in the world. You have no foundation for the above.
I have nothing but foundation, for one word leads to another thus deriving an inherent meaning as the sentence itself. Given organic life is composed of material one cannot erase meaning from the material by degree of the nature of thought which comes from it.
The physical world is but a distinction by awareness, and awareness is but the act of distinction evidenced by not only mind and matter but the fusion of both as the organism itself...and this sentence is physical. If meaning occurs only through the organic (as you claim), and the organic claims material as meaningful, then meaning is not limited by the organic by said nature of the organic.
Meaning can be outsourced.
Meaning is projected onto a meaningless world; you do not experience the reality of what is out there, you experience how what is out there alters/changes your biological state. You do not experience an objective reality; you experience your own body in its various altered states, which gives you experiences, and through the understanding of those experiences, meanings arise in the subjective consciousness. Those meanings are then redirected to the physical world as if those bodily experiences belonged to the non-living. Try to remember, there is only one source of meaning in the world, and that is life itself. There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to biological consciousness. Your apparent reality is totally biological experiences. It is a biological readout of the energies that had transformed the state of your standing biology. Your everyday reality is a biological interpretation dependent upon the form of your biology as it is played on by the energies without.
If life is projected on a meaningless world, ie the physical, and the impression of the physical on the life influences said life, it becomes a revolving circle where the transfer of meaning cannot be pinpointed between these dimensions of reality as they are interwoven to such a degree that one state cannot effectively usurp the other relative to which is more focal.
These dimensions, life and the physical, are relative starting points of awareness, an awareness that cannot be limited to one or another by degree of both being distinctions.
I have nothing but foundation, for one word leads to another thus deriving an inherent meaning as the sentence itself. Given organic life is composed of material, one cannot erase meaning from the material by degree of the nature of thought which comes from it.
The physical world is but a distinction by awareness, and awareness is but the act of distinction evidenced by not only mind and matter but the fusion of both as the organism itself...and this sentence is physical. If meaning occurs only through the organic (as you claim), and the organic claims material as meaningful, then meaning is not limited by the organic by said nature of the organic. Meaning can be outsourced.
You're working very hard, and your attempts are admirable. If you could integrate what I am trying to get across, I have the feeling there would be no stopping you from developing a most impressive philosophy. I would like to contribute to that development. If you could not be so sure of yourself for a few moments. Just ponder what's been said in a quiet time
Meaning is projected onto a meaningless world; you do not experience the reality of what is out there, you experience how what is out there alters/changes your biological state. You do not experience an objective reality; you experience your own body in its various altered states, which gives you experiences, and through the understanding of those experiences, meanings arise in the subjective consciousness. Those meanings are then redirected to the physical world as if those bodily experiences belonged to the non-living. Try to remember, there is only one source of meaning in the world, and that is life itself. There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to biological consciousness. Your apparent reality is totally biological experiences. It is a biological readout of the energies that had transformed the state of your standing biology. Your everyday reality is a biological interpretation dependent upon the form of your biology as it is played on by the energies without.
If life is projected on a meaningless world, ie the physical, and the impression of the physical on the life influences said life, it becomes a revolving circle where the transfer of meaning cannot be pinpointed between these dimensions of reality as they are interwoven to such a degree that one state cannot effectively usurp the other relative to which is more focal. These dimensions, life and the physical, are relative starting points of awareness, an awareness that cannot be limited to one or another by degree of both being distinctions.
Reality, as your everyday reality, or apparent reality, is an emergent quality; it is the product of the union of subject and object. As Schopenhauer once said, they stand or fall together. So yes, there is a relationship there, but as science now tells us, all is energy, meaning the ultimate reality, the outside world is nothing like your biological interpretation of its effects upon you, you are not experiencing the energy in and of itself, you are experiencing how that energy affects your biology, apparent reality is a biological readout a melody the cosmic energies play upon you, and its a private concert, the melody differing to different biologizes or the state of any given biology. Meaning is experience processed through the understanding of its body; meaning is the property of a conscious subject, and never does it belong to the object itself. There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to biological consciousness. Your reality is energy, constantly altering/ changing your body and what that means to your understanding.
You're working very hard, and your attempts are admirable. If you could integrate what I am trying to get across, I have the feeling there would be no stopping you from developing a most impressive philosophy. I would like to contribute to that development. If you could not be so sure of yourself for a few moments. Just ponder what's been said in a quiet time
Meaning is projected onto a meaningless world; you do not experience the reality of what is out there, you experience how what is out there alters/changes your biological state. You do not experience an objective reality; you experience your own body in its various altered states, which gives you experiences, and through the understanding of those experiences, meanings arise in the subjective consciousness. Those meanings are then redirected to the physical world as if those bodily experiences belonged to the non-living. Try to remember, there is only one source of meaning in the world, and that is life itself. There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to biological consciousness. Your apparent reality is totally biological experiences. It is a biological readout of the energies that had transformed the state of your standing biology. Your everyday reality is a biological interpretation dependent upon the form of your biology as it is played on by the energies without.
If life is projected on a meaningless world, ie the physical, and the impression of the physical on the life influences said life, it becomes a revolving circle where the transfer of meaning cannot be pinpointed between these dimensions of reality as they are interwoven to such a degree that one state cannot effectively usurp the other relative to which is more focal. These dimensions, life and the physical, are relative starting points of awareness, an awareness that cannot be limited to one or another by degree of both being distinctions.
Reality, as your everyday reality, or apparent reality, is an emergent quality; it is the product of the union of subject and object. As Schopenhauer once said, they stand or fall together. So yes, there is a relationship there, but as science now tells us, all is energy, meaning the ultimate reality, the outside world is nothing like your biological interpretation of its effects upon you, you are not experiencing the energy in and of itself, you are experiencing how that energy affects your biology, apparent reality is a biological readout a melody the cosmic energies play upon you, and its a private concert, the melody differing to different biologizes or the state of any given biology. Meaning is experience processed through the understanding of its body; meaning is the property of a conscious subject, and never does it belong to the object itself. There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to biological consciousness. Your reality is energy, constantly altering/ changing your body and what that means to your understanding.
Reality is only a distinction, one distinction among the infinite, nested within its own processes.
What you deem real is only the emergence of your own awareness of the awareness of reality. And yet this awareness is not biology itself for such a distinction is made evident before the awareness that percieves such a thing.
By what accord do you claim what is biological and what is not without mutual dependence on its opposite?
If life is projected on a meaningless world, ie the physical, and the impression of the physical on the life influences said life, it becomes a revolving circle where the transfer of meaning cannot be pinpointed between these dimensions of reality as they are interwoven to such a degree that one state cannot effectively usurp the other relative to which is more focal. These dimensions, life and the physical, are relative starting points of awareness, an awareness that cannot be limited to one or another by degree of both being distinctions.
Reality, as your everyday reality, or apparent reality, is an emergent quality; it is the product of the union of subject and object. As Schopenhauer once said, they stand or fall together. So yes, there is a relationship there, but as science now tells us, all is energy, meaning the ultimate reality, the outside world is nothing like your biological interpretation of its effects upon you, you are not experiencing the energy in and of itself, you are experiencing how that energy affects your biology, apparent reality is a biological readout a melody the cosmic energies play upon you, and its a private concert, the melody differing to different biologizes or the state of any given biology. Meaning is experience processed through the understanding of its body; meaning is the property of a conscious subject, and never does it belong to the object itself. There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to biological consciousness. Your reality is energy, constantly altering/ changing your body and what that means to your understanding.
Reality is only a distinction, one distinction among the infinite, nested within its own processes.
What you deem real is only the emergence of your own awareness of the awareness of reality. And yet this awareness is not biology itself for such a distinction is made evident before the awareness that percieves such a thing.
By what accord do you claim what is biological and what is not without mutual dependence on its opposite?
Ok, I have the feeling I am beating a dead horse here. Have a good one.
Reality, as your everyday reality, or apparent reality, is an emergent quality; it is the product of the union of subject and object. As Schopenhauer once said, they stand or fall together. So yes, there is a relationship there, but as science now tells us, all is energy, meaning the ultimate reality, the outside world is nothing like your biological interpretation of its effects upon you, you are not experiencing the energy in and of itself, you are experiencing how that energy affects your biology, apparent reality is a biological readout a melody the cosmic energies play upon you, and its a private concert, the melody differing to different biologizes or the state of any given biology. Meaning is experience processed through the understanding of its body; meaning is the property of a conscious subject, and never does it belong to the object itself. There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to biological consciousness. Your reality is energy, constantly altering/ changing your body and what that means to your understanding.
Reality is only a distinction, one distinction among the infinite, nested within its own processes.
What you deem real is only the emergence of your own awareness of the awareness of reality. And yet this awareness is not biology itself for such a distinction is made evident before the awareness that percieves such a thing.
By what accord do you claim what is biological and what is not without mutual dependence on its opposite?
Ok, I have the feeling I am beating a dead horse here. Have a good one.