only imperfection may be created from perfection

[Amorphos]

only imperfection may be created from perfection

Principle; ‘a state of perfection cannot be duplicated’ [quetz].
Principle; ‘Perfection cannot create perfection’ [quetz].
Principle; ‘only imperfection may be created from perfection’ [quetz].

Let us imagine that for our basis we have a state of perfection. I would imagine that the infinite would be ‘perfect’ as in layman’s terms, it has no rough edges. There is no entropy nor other agents of chaos, no degradation, no shape, nor form, no points or any other distinguishing features. Thus ‘an emptiness’ is a perfection, where nothing else may be. An infinite being or any other infinity we may consider, would also be perfect by its lack of distinction, that is if we can verify that there can be other versions of infinity.

Basis; if we assume for the sake of argument [in respect to the principle], that we have a, a perfection, b, it may create a given or any thing, then assuming its primary perfection, it may only create a replication of itself. As its perfection is infinite and indistinct, a replication of itself would only produce more of the same emptiness, which being featureless and stateless, would be a non-addition.

Of finite perfections [if possible].

Imagine you have a perfect cube [or a given perfect thing], it may replicate itself endlessly yet all other cubes would not be the originating cube and hence imperfect by this qualia.
Even if we were to say that those other cubes were a perfection, nothing else bar cubes may be produced without creating an imperfect cube.

Of gods creation [if so].

To the point of the principle, let us assume a perfect ‘god’ and one that can create [e.g. anything]. It may create another god and like the cube this would be perfect, yet given its perfection, the god would surely be sizeless/infinite, hence there would be no room to create another god [as its infinity is not empty it is filled with goodness].

At most we can say that god may only create other perfections in the form of himself as we have decreed that he is perfection.
If we say he may create other forms of perfections, cubes, spheres etc, they are not perfections by the same standard.
If he creates a perfect cube and then a perfect sphere, then a universe composed of a cube-sphere would not be a perfection by any of the previous standards. It would not be either kinds of perfection even if it is a perfect ‘cube-sphere’. hence a perfection would not have been created.

Can we then say that; ‘only imperfection may be created from perfection‘?

[Khora]

I would imagine that the infinite would be ‘perfect’ as in layman’s terms, it has no rough edges.

The initial premise is an assumption. Very Platonic.

[Amorphos]

The initial premise is an assumption.

What that infinity would be perfect? It depends on how we qualify what is imperfect, dict; ‘defective or inadequate’, I cannot see how the infinite or even the notion of a perfect cube would be either of these.

...but yes we are making assumption of what is or isnt perfect, we could simply say that a given perfect x cannot produce anything other than itslef. then that its qualia as the original and not duplicate, means that all other x are not perfect x's.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

If something perfect creates something, it will be perfect too. But you must be careful how you define the word perfect. Perfect may refer to its essence, to its physical appearance, to its inner workings, or any such thing. A perfect thing/being may create something perfect, but of a different sort (nature, essence, substance) than itself. But the created thing is no less perfect because it is different.

Principle; ‘a state of perfection cannot be duplicated’ [quetz].

I don't see why not.

Principle; ‘Perfection cannot create perfection’ [quetz].
Principle; ‘only imperfection may be created from perfection’ [quetz].

I would argue the exact opposite; perfection will beget perfection, while imperfection will beget imperfection. I suppose something perfect could choose to create something imperfect, but that would in no way limit its ability to create perfection.

[Amorphos]

the created thing is no less perfect because it is different.

Different to perfect?

[chriscase]

We are suffering from lack of definitions Quetz. What, precisely, is perfect?

I will try to help. You have defined one axiomatic entity - "a state of perfection". If we accept the existence of ‘a state of perfection’ axiomatically, there are only two possibilities:
1) The ‘state of perfection’ continues imperturbably;
2) A perturbation occurs.

In the case of (1), nothing changes, thus nothing is "created".
In the case of (2), something changes, and since the only "thing" in existence is "perfection", by definition a change must be other than perfection, i.e., imperfection.

Q.E.D. - although rather trivial.

[Ummon]

Created = imperfect. Multiple = imperfect. Transient = imperfect.

Besides it being impossible, there is no purpose in creating something perfect. http://www.jewishblogging.com/blog.php?bid=104246

The Zohar asks that as the intent of God in the creation of the world was to do good to His creations, why didn't he just create a world of unlimited, and free, pleasure. Why did he set up a system of commandments, and the consequent reward and punishment that flows from following the comandments or failing to do so? The Zohar answers that this is due to the fact that one who receives that which is not his, is ashamed to look in the face of his benefactor. There is a factor of shame in receiving something which one does not deserve. In order to negate this shame, God created this world in which one can work and thereby deserve the ultimate good as a form of reward of which he is deserving.
Some time ago I explained this principle to a student of mine, and he was dissatisfied with the answer. Why, he asked, didn't God just create a world in which people wouldn't be ashamed to receive something they didn't deserve? Had He done so He could have then just given unbridled pleasure to all His creations without the need for commandments and all that entails?
The Baal HaSulam explains this concept as follows. Every branch tries its best to emulate its roots. The branch will attempt to duplicate those things which exist in the roots, and to distance itself from those things which are not in the roots. This is true throughout creation in all places where you find relationships between sources and their offspring.
As God is the root of all creation, and specifically of mankind-the purpose of all creation, those things which are found in God are pleasant to us. They are the things which allow us to feel conected to our source. Those which are not found in God go against the grain and are difficult for us to accept.
It is for this reason that we like rest more than movement, to the extent that all of our movement is ultimately for the purpose of being able to rest, and we appreciate wealth, strength and wisdom-which are all present in God, more than povery, weakness and foolishness.
With this we can now answer the question of my student. God is only a giver, He is not and cannot be a recipient. It is for this reason that we always feel better giving, than we do receiving. God created a world in which we can feel like we aren't just receiving but that we are givers also, by doing what he has asked us to do. This was in order that when we receive from Him we should not feel that we are just taking something which we have not earned, and can feel to some extent connected to the manner in which God conducts Himself.

[Amorphos]

Interesting read ummon, thanks! I expect you to have some answers for me here…

We are suffering from lack of definitions Quetz. What, precisely, is perfect?

of course, we are seeking definitions not exponing them. ...and that’s a question and a half there. I would say ‘if’ anything at all is all-perfect, it would be infinity, as it has no rough edges - so to say.

As for general perfections, can we have perfect objects e.g. sphere, cube? They are perfect examples of themselves, but then the universe is a perfect example of itself, in fact everything would be perfect examples of themselves.

Is a perfect thing a perfection? What is it about a cube that makes it perfect? we could say it is completely inept at anything other than being a cube, and hence imperfect in terms of lacking etc. this brings me back to the idea that we only have all-perfection or none at all. …but by that I am specifically citing the lack of ineptitude as being the prime factor in ‘perfect’.

Could we say that, if all things are perfect examples of themselves, and yet each and every thing is an imperfection in and of itself. The collection of all perfections would be all-perfection?

[chriscase]

Is it coincidence that we just had a discussion of Plato...?

[Amorphos]

It is, however one thing leads to another even if we don’t realise it.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Different to perfect?

A different kind of perfect. There may be (for example's sake) a perfect square and a perfect triangle, yet they are different since they are different types of shapes. Yet that does not make either un-perfect.

[Amorphos]

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’.


@Ummon, I think you know what I mean there.

[Ummon]

Perhaps the cube is part of a perfect uber-item, which includes the idea of cubes.

[chriscase]

Perhaps the cube is part of a perfect uber-item, which includes the idea of cubes.

i.e. the Realm of Forms a la Plato.

[Amorphos]

Perhaps the cube is part of a perfect uber-item, which includes the idea of cubes.

hm Like plato’s forms except as ideas, archetypes even.

Strangely a parallel thread over at ilp forums, has yielded infinity + awareness [as one thing], so the addition of all-perfection in terms of unexpressed ideas, is interesting indeed.


Btw as to the perfection I thought you would understand, twas more to do with a living goddess ye knows. by the oscar wilde film/book; No other will do but he who has the qualia of being earnest or factor ‘x’ that we see as our sought perfection.

[Ummon]

The Perfect Item on the other side implies surely awareness and infinity (and perpetual bliss). But from our point of view these attributes are meaningless, here. Merely labels we apply.

There's a veil of nothingness in between.

Female beauty is surely cool, but at the moment I am rather indifferent towards it. Other urgent things to do.

i.e. the Realm of Forms a la Plato.

The realm of forms is certainly an intermediate passage towards perfection.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

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’.


@Ummon, I think you know what I mean there.

There is one absolutely perfect thing, and that is God. There are other sorts of perfect things, which are perfect in their own respective areas (eg perfect cube, perfect triangle, etc), but are not absolutely perfect in every way. Yet I don't think these objects are imperfect simply because they are not God. We are using the word "perfect" in multiple ways here and I think you are confusing matters a little.