Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00044)

Visanu:

What you say is basicaly this:

(1) Although our perception is not perfect it is quite possible
that world is perfect.  I made mistake concluding from part to
whole.

(2) Our valuation and attribution of perfection or imperfection
may be wrong.

(3) 'World' is relative notion, it may be different 'for me' and
'for you.' So we can not make consequences on 'all worlds' and
underlying reality of all worlds.

(4) Our 'logical tool' is to weak to answer on such question.

I will shortly answer on this.

(1) Yap, there are many similar logical mistakes.  For example,
Aristoteles said that stars are round and planets are round so
Universe must be round.

However, I do not think we have such case here.  If you look on
my letter, it is clearly noted that such conclusion in case of
perfection is not pure logical, in the sense logical
conclusion=3Dvalid no matter which notions we substitute.

But, in this case it holds.  The world with parts which are not
perfect is certenly not perfect.  We may imagine better one,
where (all, some, at least on of) imperfect parts is exchanged
with perfect parts.

You may say that imperfect parts are 'necessary' but it is quite
different thing than that there not exist.  And lead us to sam
question: why imperfection is necessary?

(2) In principle it may be wrong.  I may say that diamond is not
perfect although it is.  But it is no more than general
possibility that I'm wrong.  At the end it is reason why we are
talking now.

On concrete question I do not see the possibility that world is
perfect although we do not recognize it.  For example, I am not
perfect for sure.  Not to mention other things.  So, the world is
not perfect.  Even you think that our perception is limited,
which lead us to previous answer.

If you really need proof that world is not perfect it is here:
you can imagine better one, (and perhaps even change the world so
it will be 'a better place')

If you think that imperfections are necessary, go to (2).

(3) No, world is not relative, at least in meaning that I use and
that I defined in first letter and which.  If you remember it, I
defined the world as 'everything that exists at all' so it
contain all our subjective or objective thoughts, 'underlying
reality', God, etc.  It is very usual meaning of the word and
nothing sensational: we just defined it.

(4) Maybe, even probably it is true.  But not only 'logical' or
better rational answer is interesting.  Remember, Buddha's
teaching was not 'only logical' but he also answered on such
question 'Do not ask who send it arrow, just put it out'.  So,
are the 'mystical tools' also to weak?

Regards,

Kazimir