Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00039)

Kazimir Majorinc wrote:

> Your answer is about:
>
> World is perfect, but we percept it as imperfect.
>
> If we suppose that it is the true, than our
> perception is imperfect. We may conlude that
> the world as whole is imperfect, because it
> has imperfect part. (Note that this is not
> pure logical conclusion, but perfection has this
> property - it can not have imperfect parts)
>
> So, why world is not perfect?

Does the the fact that an infinite set comprise a finite set make
it finite?

When we cry at the folly of Romeo do we blame Shakespeare for his
imperfection?

Perfection or imperfection is not intrinsic property of things.
It has to be interpreted in context.  When we assign perfection
to a beautiful rose its perfection doesn't vanish by the
inevitable decay of its petal a few days hence.

There is your world and there is my world.  Is it the same world?
My previous posting suggests the relativeness of these worlds and
their imperfection according to the level of beings that uphold
them.  Then the question arise of the perfection of the whole,
the underlying reality of all these worlds, the One Life.

What is the yardstick that we use to evaluate its perfection?

Do we know of its purpose, if it has any.  Is it being or
non-being.  Has it inherent existence or not.  Can we answer
these problems with our limited perception.  If not then is it
prudent to label "not perfect" as one of its attribute.

The tendency to tackle mystical problem with the only tool,
logical reasoning, has been warned by Wittgenstein.

"The sense of the world must lie outside the world.  In the world
everything is as it is, and everything happen as it does happen:
in it no value exists...

There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words.  They
make themselves manifest...

What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence"

Best, Visanu